From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org] Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 8:35 AM To: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: finite number of sentences "Paul Holbach" wrote: > > OK, what's self-contradictory about an infinite regress? > > Any reference to an infinite regress provides a fallacious > pseudo-explanation. We're not debating whether an actual infinitude violates the principle of sufficient reason. We're debating your claim that an actual infinitude is logically inconsistent. Again: what's self-contradictory about an infinite regress? > > You have IIRC acknowledged that time can be infinite. > > (What does IIRC stand for? If I Recall Correctly. > I´m convinced that time is infinite towards the future If an infinite progress is not self-contradictory, then neither is an infinite regress. > By the way, does the principle of commutativity hold good for an > infinite series? Is (1+1/2+1/3+ ... )=( ... +1/n+ ... + 1/3+1/2+1) ? I would assume so. > > "Uncaused" does not imply "eternally pre-existing". > > there´s reason to suppose that such [uncaused] events are at > least metaphysically or physically impossible. But that would be no help for your claim that they are *logically* impossible. > > it is logically possible that infinitude could just > > spontaneously arise uncaused. > > OK, I admit that [for] "Nothing exists without a cause" > [its] negation doesn´t lead to a logical contradiction Right. > you have to presuppose the dubious > trans-logical, ie metaphysical&physical possibility of actual > infinites (I know that´s what you´re actually doing) and to present a > plausible and consistent metaphysical or physical model explicitly > describing how something finite could actually produce something > infinite. No, I don't have to "explicitly describe" how something is physically possible to claim that it is not metaphysically impossible. Nor do I have to "explicitly describe" how something is metaphysically possible to claim that it is not logically impossible. > infinitudes somehow mysteriously arising out > of finitudes goes against the grain of everything we know about > ourselves and the world. Perhaps, but it does *not* "go against the grain of everything we know about" logical possibility. > Your personal first principle seems to be: Anything goes! ;-) More precisely: anything that is not logically impossible is logically possible. (Do you disagree?) > it doesn´t make sense to me that cardinalities larger than aleph-1 > should be applicable to metaphysics Why not? -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net