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

[Anomalocaris]

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.

And define why it is not?

Either each instantiation itself, or the detaileds of each instantiation, is made possible by a prior instantiation, which in turn depends upon yet another, going back along an infinite chain.  How is that not infinite regression?

 You just can't admit you didn't, or more likely won't, see how infinite regression - not necessarily true but already too threatening to the canard cited to justify the need for theistic creation bullshit - can be embedded in different flavor a of cosmologies consistent with observation.

[Brian37]

Religionists like to claim that there can't be infinite regresses. Therefore the universe must have been starting by the favourite deity because an infinite regress would mean we cannot get to 'now'. However, I'm struggling to find any problems with an infinite regress when it comes to the universe. Basically, I don't see why there can't be an infinite number of (past) universes. There are a few models relating to the death of the universe. For example, one suggests that black holes will force the universe to begin to contract again and then the universe will be reborn.

So, I was wondering:

1. Do you think having an infinite regress actually a problem for the universe we are in?

2. Is an infinite regress really as big of an issue as religionists like to claim it is?

Edit: Rodger Penrose has talked about a 'cyclical universe' [url=Edit: Rodger Penrose has talked about a 'cyclical universe' here (i.e. an infinite cycle of universes dying and being born) here (i.e. an infinite cycle of universes dying and being born).

The way science looks at infinite and finite is not the same as how religion views it. 

I see "all this" as merely a giant weather pattern. No different than knowing less complex factors like weather conditions can build up to lead to a hurricane which is more complex, eventually that hurricane runs out of energy and breaks up.

It is simply a matter of going from one state to another no different than seasons changing.Laurence Krauss has no problem with a universe coming from nothing and I agree. "Nothing" the way science treats the word is not the same as the way laypeople think of it.

  

[Tonus]

Religionists like to claim that there can't be infinite regresses.

Only because they give god a special exemption by making him 'eternal.'  which, as I often joke, means that it literally took him forever to create the universe.  In any event, getting around the problem of who created god by simply giving him a new super-power doesn't really deal with the issue of infinite regress.

I don't know if there's a problem with an infinite regression of universes, or if the multiverse theories are valid or even possible.  I simply don't understand the physics anywhere near well enough to say.  It's a fascinating concept, especially if you imagine the scale of something like a "bubbling soup of universes."  What if this universe is just one of dozens being used by magnificent cosmic entities to play a game of marbles in their reality?  What if some of the dust motes we wipe off of our furniture are universes like ours, whose intelligent life make up such a tiny fraction of its mass that they measure its distance in billions of light years?

[John V]

OK, let's look at it closer.

Think of an infinite foam.  Let's say if any bubble

As the bubbles are analogous to universes, the foam is analogous to a multiverse. You're giving yourself an infinite number of universes as a starting position. No one bubble needs another for its existence. They're already there.

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.

Now you're adding popping to dress it up like an infinite regression.

Yet the popping of any particular bubble does not require its antecedent to unpop.

Yes, but only because you gave yourself a multiverse to begin with.

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.

If you're limiting yourself to what we know - our universe - and not giving yourself an infinite multiverse as a starting point, then yes, you do need a mechanism to get from the end of one universe to the beginning of another.

Further, if you're giving yourself a multiverse, you don't need one universe to be dependent on another. They're already there as a given.

---

And define why it is not?

Either each instantiation itself, or the detaileds of each instantiation, is made possible by a prior instantiation, which in turn depends upon yet another, going back along an infinite chain.  How is that not infinite regression?

See above.

You just can't admit you didn't, or more likely won't, see how infinite regression - not necessarily true but already too threatening to the canard cited to justify the need for theistic creation bullshit - can be embedded in different flavor a of cosmologies consistent with observation.

A multiverse as a starting point is not "consistent with observation." We have observed exactly one universe.

[Brian37]

RationalPoet, there is no problem with either infinite or finite with "infinite regression" if you put "all this" as a cycle instead of trying to solve the complex by asserting something more complex. Again, no different than knowing the atmosphere can have many less complex parts interacting that lead to a complex hurricane which eventually runs out of energy and breaks down again.

It is simply a matter of going from the less complex to a build up which eventually breaks down again.

[Whateverist]

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.

And some might say you're just trying to have your god and pretend like you care about the truth too.

---

---

OK, let's look at it closer.

Think of an infinite foam.  Let's say if any bubble

As the bubbles are analogous to universes, the foam is analogous to a multiverse. You're giving yourself an infinite number of universes as a starting position. No one bubble needs another for its existence. They're already there.

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.

Now you're adding popping to dress it up like an infinite regression.

Yet the popping of any particular bubble does not require its antecedent to unpop.

Yes, but only because you gave yourself a multiverse to begin with.

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.

If you're limiting yourself to what we know - our universe - and not giving yourself an infinite multiverse as a starting point, then yes, you do need a mechanism to get from the end of one universe to the beginning of another.

Further, if you're giving yourself a multiverse, you don't need one universe to be dependent on another. They're already there as a given.

---

And define why it is not?

Either each instantiation itself, or the detaileds of each instantiation, is made possible by a prior instantiation, which in turn depends upon yet another, going back along an infinite chain.  How is that not infinite regression?

See above.

You just can't admit you didn't, or more likely won't, see how infinite regression - not necessarily true but already too threatening to the canard cited to justify the need for theistic creation bullshit - can be embedded in different flavor a of cosmologies consistent with observation.

A multiverse as a starting point is not "consistent with observation." We have observed exactly one universe.

---

And if a multiverse is indeed the case, exactly one universe is all we ever will observe.  If there is a way to look beyond this one, no one has yet found it.  Not being able to look beyond the universe wherein we reside is consistent with there being a multiverse.