Infinite Regression

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
101

Actually not.

By definition, any existence is a changing. That has not been immediately obvious in the past due to common wording. By defining existence as “that which has affect” and knowing that to affect means to change, it becomes apparent that without a changing, an affecting, there can be no existence. Thus change or affect is the very first axiom/premise accepted merely by definition, no prior reasoning required.

From that point, to say that there used to be a nothingness, is to say that existence created itself before it existed. Or “something must change in order to initially cause change”.

102

Thought of this paradigmn in QM, but here an energy transfer between different states, could, conceivably be defined in terms other than an objective cosmological nothingness, CAUSING change . But, it brings back definition and the priority of thought.

Far flung, out, is the notion that , in the beginning was the WORD, and that certainly was not caused
by a nothingness, since ‘nothingness’ is, it’s self a thought, unless, thought is a sort of bound state ,it’s
self.

Out of a forced reserve, I will not insist, You answer this, besides, I am sure, You will have me at some disadvantage. However, the UFT, has grappled with these, and shifted preference toward the
cosmological, away from the ontic-ontological argument. (UFT-unified field theory)

103

I discovered a few things…

Time is nothing but the measure of relative change between things. And distance is merely a measure of the amount of changing between things, although not discreetly observable.

What that means is that in a very highly dense region of space (mass), wherein ultra-minuscule EMR pulses (“Affectance”) are extremely random and strong, thus maintaining a great deal of changing within a small space. The concept of General Relativity becomes valid because objects entering that region will shrink relative to an outside observer. And if the observer was to enter that region, he would not measure any change in himself, but would measure the outside region to be expanding as he entered.

The bottom line is that the measurements of time and distance vary with the density of changing, the density of “affectance”. That is one thing that RM:AO and General Relativity agree upon (not Special Relativity).

104

You can’t have “energy transfer” nor “different states” if you have nothingness.

105

Brain Waves are exhibited as transferring to other minds, under extra-ordinary situations, producing synchronicity. This has been observed in the history of science, in the famous example of co-discovery of the integral calculus by both : Newton and Leibnitz.
Other lesser known examples abound in many studies , albeit some discredited, in parapsychology cal phenomena.

106

Again, the question is bound to be asked, ‘why not’?
A bias of inductive reason where it’s method covers a mere 5 percent of known , historical human history.

107

Where’s the nothing in your example here?

108

The nothing consists of inter-psychic substance, such as any medium which could transmit information. There is nothing which seems to indicate it, or, warrant the experience.

I know it is a stretch but infinite means infinite and regression means no route left unexamined. I think
This type of phenomenon has a borderline pseudo legitimacy, however , more than enough to connect the lines with.

109

Sounds like a something, especially given the word ‘substance’.

110

It may sound like it, but is sound-some thing? Are waves propagating through air -some thing? You might have not meant to 'sound’literally, but in fact
Your using the word ,‘sound’, objectively, shows a tendency , a bias.

bias.

E
ven if You were to say, ‘it looks as if, it was substantial’ it could not be determined, whether it was produced substantially by a wave, or a particle.

The idea is, just by using the word ‘substance’, or ‘substantial’ may not pin it down to it’s literal
meaning. It may as well be said, that the substance is
ether, through which thoughts flow qua consciousness. ‘Consciousness’ is another one of those concepts, which seem to be understood as some kind of substance.

111

Orbie,

If it is having any kind of affect at all, it is not nothing. If it is an “it”, it is not nothing.

112

So, given that there is no contrast class to Existence/Totality, since non-existence cannot be, much less be productive, we have it that Existence must be, with no choice, no option, as necessity, so we can stop worrying about how something can be already ‘made’ without it ever having been ‘made’, for we’ve found a Truth, and a truth is better than a proof because then one doesn’t need the proof, at least no right away.

People will have to take care in how they refer to the impossible nothing/non-existence, as, for example, in claiming that there is Nothing outside something or little bits of Nothing inside something as a kind of spacer.

So, Totality/Existence has no beginning, and thus is ever, meaning, too, that it can have no end, being always. It is, rather than is not, and if this is more than just in the present tense we refer to it as eternal, its past eternal already complete, but not its future one, presumably, although surely its gone through just about everything possible time and time again.

So, now we can go further, such as that it has no set direction to it, given there isn’t anything ‘before’ it and thus no point for a design to be imparted to it. Plus, Totality is all there is and so there is no ‘outside’ either.

Given no set direction, it has to generate happenings in and of itself, by some process, but we are left to consider that either it has to operate in just one way due to necessity or that it can, for lack of any one specific direction, go in any and all directions, as doing everything, which, I know sounds nebulous, as something like a wide open possibility or potentiality.

Any thoughts so far? I like the part that it is generative.

113

But James, if I set ‘it’=X=0=nothing, in that particular de notation, I may not have to worry about a differing co notation where the above proposition may not hold true?

114

I am not 100% certain of your wording, but I think that I agree.

They have never been careful before. I don’t see why they would have to start now. When someone says, “there is no air in this room”, they are never being 100% precise.

True.

Not true. The universe has more potential states than time to arrange for them. Although there has been an infinity of time in the past, there has always been infinity^3 potential states (using simple whole number math), thus the universe can never go through all of it’s potential states even given an infinite future.

The universe can never repeat itself.

It does have exactly one necessary manner of operating/processing and that can never change. It does “generate happenings” as it processes onward. As far as a “direction” … well, directions are Man made concepts, so just make one that suits your concerns and it will be true enough.

That would allow you to redefine the word “it”. But that would not dismiss the concern that if it was having affect of any kind at all, it already existed as a something and not a nothing.

115

And I suspect that you might find it interesting that there are always an infinite number of YOU throughout the universe, thinking the same thoughts, having the same desires. But the similarity between each only lasts for an infinitesimal instant before diverging.

116

Infinite regression is impossible for several reasons. First, time must have a beginning. If there was an infinite amount of time in our past, our present time would never have been reached because you cannot proceed through an infinity of time to reach our time. Second, the Big Bang is proof that a beginning of time is necessary because it occurred. Third, infinite regression is irrational, because there must be an initial starting spatial material Order from which all subsequent Order is derived.

117

Well, there you are … been waiting.

False presumption.

And that is the argument that I have been expecting. It is another false presumption, but it is very common.

Even if a Bang occurred, that would not mean the beginning of time (an oxymoron).

And yet a third false presumption.

Can you come up with any way to support any of those presumptuous thoughts?

  1. The infinite past has had an infinite amount of time to become the present.
  2. The “beginning of time” is an oxymoron, much as a “square circle”. Change cannot begin without already existing.
  3. There is no need for an inertial state. That is merely your imagination.
118

I disagree . The infinity You describe is based on a perfectly linear succession of moments. James notion is well taken, that it is of infinitesimally
duration. As such is only describable in a non linear
landscape, where, even a deviation of a functional equivalent of one infinitesimal unit less then the limit of that function, causes the formation of near
infinitely curved universe. That deviation, may never
completely form an ideal enclosure, because there is a backward loss due to some functional loss through some kind of affect. (Maybe ether like). This is only
a hunch, and that is why an absolutely repeating
identity is not only I distinct because it’s so short lived, but because the surge of repetitions always occur in a differing space time. That minute
deviation invalidates a recognizable eternal return. It
is not that, there are no infinite identities, only that they are distinct only to the range of affect of (defined identity)-(the deviation all affectance((if you
would)) ). The functional derivitive can only be

approximated through this loss of the sum of all (minus affectivity).

This is like identity suffers loss of minute and
indistinct identity, due to a drift, through the affects
of the deviation, from the paradigmn of the Absolute enclosure of one world.

Therefore, eternal regression can occur until the deviation looses all curvature. But then, the
revolution causes the curvature to bend backwards.

At the point of the absolute singular, the total collapse of all worlds becomes impossible, again
because of the deviation causes itself to overcome even that affect. Therefore, I agree that the Big Bang is impossible, because, there never can be, an
absolutely all enclosing super universe, excluding the

deviation even of the most minute corresponding deviation

The best way to describe it is not by a line which bends backward, but it also twists, to avoid having
to become absolutely linear.

The above is merely a mere intuitive description, more poetic than anything.The below will deleat because of lack of clarity.

119

edited to cancel

120

edited to cancel due to poor quality