Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Is an infinite temporal regress of events...?

AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 11:07:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Possible.

Part of the support for KCA is that

"Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite
An actual infinite cannot exist.
An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition
A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite."

But if something can be "timeless", isn't it just as possible that an infinite temporal regression can exist?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 11:20:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 11:07:46 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
But if something can be "timeless", isn't it just as possible that an infinite temporal regression can exist?

So you're saying that an infinite temporal regression could exist as long as something is timeless? I don't see that. Why would you think that something being timeless would make an infinite temporal regression possible?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 11:37:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 11:20:21 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:07:46 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
But if something can be "timeless", isn't it just as possible that an infinite temporal regression can exist?

So you're saying that an infinite temporal regression could exist as long as something is timeless? I don't see that. Why would you think that something being timeless would make an infinite temporal regression possible?

I'm saying that claiming;

Actual infinities don't exist, so an infinite temporal regression can't exist is fair enough. But then claiming, so there has to be something that is timeless is absurd.

Nothing timeless exists either.

You can't claim, actual infinities don't exist, but then that something timeless can.

At least, that's what I think.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 11:51:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 11:37:03 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:20:21 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:07:46 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
But if something can be "timeless", isn't it just as possible that an infinite temporal regression can exist?

So you're saying that an infinite temporal regression could exist as long as something is timeless? I don't see that. Why would you think that something being timeless would make an infinite temporal regression possible?

I'm saying that claiming;

Actual infinities don't exist, so an infinite temporal regression can't exist is fair enough. But then claiming, so there has to be something that is timeless is absurd.

Nothing timeless exists either.

You can't claim, actual infinities don't exist, but then that something timeless can.

At least, that's what I think.

Do you think the arguments against infinite regresses apply equally to timeless things such that if one is impossible then the other is also impossible? If so, what is the line of reasoning?

The reason for thinking that a timeless being follows from the impossibility of an infinite regress is because of the addition of a universal causal principle. If there can't be an infinite regress, then all temporal entities had a beginning, and if all temporal entities had a beginning, then they had a cause, and since the cause is wholly other than all temporal entities, then it must be atemporal.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 1:42:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 11:51:04 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:37:03 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:20:21 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:07:46 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
But if something can be "timeless", isn't it just as possible that an infinite temporal regression can exist?

So you're saying that an infinite temporal regression could exist as long as something is timeless? I don't see that. Why would you think that something being timeless would make an infinite temporal regression possible?

I'm saying that claiming;

Actual infinities don't exist, so an infinite temporal regression can't exist is fair enough. But then claiming, so there has to be something that is timeless is absurd.

Nothing timeless exists either.

You can't claim, actual infinities don't exist, but then that something timeless can.

At least, that's what I think.

Do you think the arguments against infinite regresses apply equally to timeless things such that if one is impossible then the other is also impossible? If so, what is the line of reasoning?

The reason for thinking that a timeless being follows from the impossibility of an infinite regress is because of the addition of a universal causal principle. If there can't be an infinite regress, then all temporal entities had a beginning, and if all temporal entities had a beginning, then they had a cause, and since the cause is wholly other than all temporal entities, then it must be atemporal.

I'm saying that we say actual infinities don't exist, but neither do timeless entities.

I'm not sure on the grounds of which to choose one over the other.

P1: A timeless entity can not exist.
P2 If a timeless entity doesn't exist then time must infinitely regress.

C1: Time infinitely regresses.

?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 1:48:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 1:42:53 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

I'm saying that we say actual infinities don't exist, but neither do timeless entities.

I'm not sure on the grounds of which to choose one over the other.

P1: A timeless entity can not exist.
P2 If a timeless entity doesn't exist then time must infinitely regress.

C1: Time infinitely regresses.

?

Oh, I think I see what you're saying. You're making a reductio ad absurdum.

1. If an infinite regress is not possible, then a timeless being exists.
2. A timeless being does not exist.
3. Therefore, an infinite regress is possible.

But 3 seems wrong so...

4. If an infinite regress is not possible, then a timeless being exists.
5. An infinite regress is not possible.
6. therefore, a timeless being exists.

So either an infinite regress is possible, or a timeless being is possible, and you're not sure which it is because neither seems to be possible, but one must be, and it can't be both. Is that right?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 2:02:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 1:48:20 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/11/2013 1:42:53 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

I'm saying that we say actual infinities don't exist, but neither do timeless entities.

I'm not sure on the grounds of which to choose one over the other.

P1: A timeless entity can not exist.
P2 If a timeless entity doesn't exist then time must infinitely regress.

C1: Time infinitely regresses.

?

Oh, I think I see what you're saying. You're making a reductio ad absurdum.

1. If an infinite regress is not possible, then a timeless being exists.
2. A timeless being does not exist.
3. Therefore, an infinite regress is possible.

But 3 seems wrong so...

4. If an infinite regress is not possible, then a timeless being exists.
5. An infinite regress is not possible.
6. therefore, a timeless being exists.

So either an infinite regress is possible, or a timeless being is possible, and you're not sure which it is because neither seems to be possible, but one must be, and it can't be both. Is that right?

Exactly. I'd side with the timeless entity, whatever it is. But I can't see an actual reason why, both seem as absurd as each other. It seems like on or the other does actually have to be possible though.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!