Is there really any problem with an infinate regresion of universes?

[Anomalocaris]

why do you suppose infinite regress means "our" universe, whatever that means, fluctuates?

Because, if universes begin with a big bang from a singularity, as is commonly (but not universally) accepted, then the current universe must necessarily collapse in order for the next one to begin.

Philosophically, there's nothing prohibiting eternal universes. But, our observations so far indicate otherwise.

No, the Big Bang could have happened while previous universes were moving towards their own heat deaths.    The instantiation of more universes can go on even as our own moves inexorably towards heat death.

[Mudhammam]

Because, if universes begin with a big bang from a singularity, as is commonly (but not universally) accepted, then the current universe must necessarily collapse in order for the next one to begin.

Philosophically, there's nothing prohibiting eternal universes. But, our observations so far indicate otherwise.

There is no observatable data that show the universe began to exist. The only observation is that the universe was once hot, dense, and very small. Some people and scientist extrapolate this information to a beginning without a proper justification because the known physicals laws are no longer valid at such dense hot states . The scientist will freely admit this.

Still, it's reasonable to ask why it didn't remain hot, dense, and very small, and to term the conditions that resulted in the expansion of the Universe we perceive as the beginning of spacetime existence, no? 

[Anomalocaris]

why do you suppose infinite regress means "our" universe, whatever that means, fluctuates?  

The regress is still there if each universe has a definite beginning, and can have an variable and in principle open ended evolution, but the instantiation of the universes has no definite beginning.

Do you mean that each individual universe has a beginning but that the substratum from which one comes, whether we think of such an entity as physical or not, simply "is" in a way that eliminates "was" and "will be"? If motion is without beginning or end, won't we have on our hands something like eternal recurrences where all possibilities that can be exhausted are in fact so, ad infinitum?

Basically.

[watchamadoodle]

1. Infinite regress is no more of a problem for a universe than it is for a deity. In both cases we're speaking of an unmoved mover that underlies change as an unchanging substratum. The difficulty is connecting the unmoved to the moved in such a way that change has not occurred, otherwise the unmoved is moveable. The elephant in the room is time. What is it?
2. I don't see it as logically impossible, though it would seem logically inconceivable.

It's difficult for Christians to have a personal relationship with a God who is an "unmoved mover" IMO. I wonder if the Christian philosophers ever considered that problem?

[John V]

Because, if universes begin with a big bang from a singularity, as is commonly (but not universally) accepted, then the current universe must necessarily collapse in order for the next one to begin.

Philosophically, there's nothing prohibiting eternal universes. But, our observations so far indicate otherwise.

No, the Big Bang could have happened while previous universes were moving towards their own heat deaths.    The instantiation of more universes can go on even as our own moves inexorably towards heat death.

But that's not an infinite regress.

[Mudhammam]

Do you mean that each individual universe has a beginning but that the substratum from which one comes, whether we think of such an entity as physical or not, simply "is" in a way that eliminates "was" and "will be"? If motion is without beginning or end, won't we have on our hands something like eternal recurrences where all possibilities that can be exhausted are in fact so, ad infinitum?

Basically.

That's a pretty mind-blowing concept. Is it in a sense correct then, as on the many-worlds interpretation, to view each "chronon" of time, as eternal? That literally, everything I am doing at this "moment" (which is probably divisible to billions upon billions of units of time, if they exist) is always happening in some region of being? And, does it mean, if there is the possibility, that flying spaghetti monsters exist in some world? 

---

1. Infinite regress is no more of a problem for a universe than it is for a deity. In both cases we're speaking of an unmoved mover that underlies change as an unchanging substratum. The difficulty is connecting the unmoved to the moved in such a way that change has not occurred, otherwise the unmoved is moveable. The elephant in the room is time. What is it?
2. I don't see it as logically impossible, though it would seem logically inconceivable.

It's difficult for Christians to have a personal relationship with a God who is an "unmoved mover" IMO. I wonder if the Christian philosophers ever considered that problem?

Theism basically takes the philosophical concepts of a deity and personalizes it through revelation. Everything god does, at least according to how I was taught, occurs over all time. So, why pray for divine intervention? Well, some would probably say that everything, including a person's prayers, was foreknown by god, so while he didn't directly cause every event per se (which makes no sense to me, but they posit some incoherent notion of each individual "soul" being an unmoved mover, that is, possessing free will), he acts, based on his foreknowledge of events in time, eternally. It's a lot more convoluted than that, of course, with divisions that don't make much sense and solutions that must ultimately just be rendered "mysterious."

[Anomalocaris]

No, the Big Bang could have happened while previous universes were moving towards their own heat deaths.    The instantiation of more universes can go on even as our own moves inexorably towards heat death.

But that's not an infinite regress.

That is.   The event which precipitated our universe has experience infinite number of prior occurrences, without any discernibly different initiation event.

[Surgenator]

There is no observatable data that show the universe began to exist. The only observation is that the universe was once hot, dense, and very small. Some people and scientist extrapolate this information to a beginning without a proper justification because the known physicals laws are no longer valid at such dense hot states . The scientist will freely admit this.

Still, it's reasonable to ask why it didn't remain hot, dense, and very small, and to term the conditions that resulted in the expansion of the Universe we perceive as the beginning of spacetime existence, no? 

Of course, ask away. But you cannot use the known physical laws to something about that state when the known physical laws don't work in that regime.

[robvalue]

Abstractly, there is no problem with infinite regression that I can see. Whether or not it is possible in reality I have no idea, and I don't know if it's something we could ever test. An interesting idea, for sure.

[Mudhammam]

Still, it's reasonable to ask why it didn't remain hot, dense, and very small, and to term the conditions that resulted in the expansion of the Universe we perceive as the beginning of spacetime existence, no? 

Of course, ask away. But you cannot use the known physical laws to something about that state when the known physical laws don't work in that regime.

I agree... yet isn't there a threshold to the amount of head-exploding that a notion, such as an uncaused beginning (or a becoming of a current state), is allowed before we say, "Okay, that obviously isn't correct." I mean, I've come to expect science to defy intuition but formal logic? It seems like a dangerous line to tow less we just start accepting explanations because they're all that we have, even if they aren't that good. What do you think?