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

[The Grand Nudger]

Infinite regress is a problem for a system which attempts to explain and describe the world around us (because it offers no explanation, the very purpose of the system) - it is most definitely -not- a problem for the world the system attempts to explain and describe.

[Anomalocaris]

Infinite regress is a problem for a system which attempts to explain and describe the world around us (because it offers no explanation, the very purpose of the system) - it is most definitely -not- a problem for the world the system attempts to explain and describe.

Well, how would you know whether that would be a problem for the world or not if you don't trust the best system which attempts to explain and describe the world around us?

As the world has proven to be able to do things we didn't think possible based on our system of explanation and description, the world has also on as many other occasions proven to be incapable of doing things we reflexively thought ought to be possible.  Exceed speed of light, and pin down location and energy of particles with arbitrary precision, for example.

[The Grand Nudger]

What would a problem for the world be?  Seems a bit of a non-cog to me.  The world is what it is, regardless of how well described the world is by any given system.  The system hinges itself on conditionals precisely because we understand that something can be true, but inaccurate, even false...while accurate.  

I'm not sure what I'm being asked to explain.  I do trust our system....to do what it claims...not be something that it lays no claim to?

[John V]

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.

No, it isn't. An infinite regress is a series in which each proposition is dependent on the one before it. You're describing propositions in parallel which are independent of each other, but each dependent on another common proposition. They're not the same thing. 

[Surgenator]

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

No, it isn't. An infinite regress is a series in which each proposition is dependent on the one before it. You're describing propositions in parallel which are independent of each other, but each dependent on another common proposition. They're not the same thing. 

And the problem with recurrence relation is? How does this relationship break down if we have infinities?

[Whateverist]

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.

We are simply in no position to verify whether 'the' universe is the one and only or if multi-verses include our particular version.  We seem to be in no better position to rule multiverses out than we are to verify them.  But any perceived problems with infinite regress where cosmology is concerned all hinge on 'everything' having a beginning before which there was 'nothing'.  In general, we are ill equipped to draw conclusions regarding the infinite or eternal.  We (science) have gathered a lot of the clues regarding the origins of our neighborhood extending to the limits of the known universe.  What lies beyond is no more likely "nothing" than it is "everything else".  Until we find a way to peer past the limits of everything associated with the local big bang we will simply not know.  My gut tells me a frothy, foamy enormity of universes going on at a scale we will never be able to take the measure of.

[The Grand Nudger]

Even our language and the mechanics of our explanatory system are insufficient for that conversation.  This is further grounds to apply the salt with whatever proclamations we may come up with based upon our system of "ifs".  

We can't even talk about causality, or do simple logical trans - without somehow breaching the "rules".   At least not in english (or a great many other languages). We're a polyglot forum though, so perhaps someone could suggest a language that better handles time, causality, regress, and mechanics?

[Anomalocaris]

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

No, it isn't. An infinite regress is a series in which each proposition is dependent on the one before it. You're describing propositions in parallel which are independent of each other, but each dependent on another common proposition. They're not the same thing. 

Yes, it is.   Neither theory nor observation insist the supposedly parallel propositions as you put it must be really independent of each other.   All that is required by the fact that our universe appears to be headed towards an end state very different from its initial state is each successive proposition is not required to actually be made from the end state of another.

Think of an infinite foam.  Let's say if any bubble in the foam pops, it would destabilize an adjacent bubble and cause that to pop as well.  So each popping of a bubble is attributable to the popping of another bubble in an infinite regression.  Yet the popping of any particular bubble does not require its antecedent to unpop.   If one observes a bubble pop, but see no indication of it unpopping in order to pop again, that does not disprove the notion the original popping is part of infinite regression.

In a like manner, the fact that our universe appear to be headed towards some end state wildly different from what appeared to have been its beginning state does not show its beginning is therefore not part of infinite regression.

[John V]

Yes, it is.   Neither theory nor observation insist the supposedly parallel propositions as you put it must be really independent of each other.   All that is required by the fact that our universe appears to be headed towards an end state very different from its initial state is each successive proposition is not required to actually be made from the end state of another.

And so it's not an infinite regression. You're just trying to have your cake and eat it too, i.e. propose some sort of multiverse and try to dress it up as an infinite regression.

[Mudhammam]

No, it isn't. An infinite regress is a series in which each proposition is dependent on the one before it. You're describing propositions in parallel which are independent of each other, but each dependent on another common proposition. They're not the same thing. 

Yes, it is.   Neither theory nor observation insist the supposedly parallel propositions as you put it must be really independent of each other.   All that is required by the fact that our universe appears to be headed towards an end state very different from its initial state is each successive proposition is not required to actually be made from the end state of another.

I'm going to interchange "proposition" with "event" for clarity.
Okay, so, we should still presumably have to justify what it is that makes the first event in the succession different from all of those that follow it, if all of those that succeed the first event are connected in such a way that the next event's becoming entails the last event's perishing.