Infinite regress seems like an illogical idea.
What seems more probable is an unmoved mover;
an eternal, static reality that willed things to move.
The first act of motion was caused by will-power.
It’s safe to call this reality “God”. I don’t mean some
guy with a beard in the clouds, but rather the ultimate
reality - the eternal.
I don’t think the universe came into existence from nothing.
The universe is eternal, but it has not eternally been in motion.
Thoughts are welcome
???
How so? Seems very logical to me.
That is actually a separate issue having nothing to do with infinite regression.
There was no “first act of motion” (Dear Thomas screwed up).
The universe exists because of consciousness
Once consciousness is gone there is an infinite amount of time for it to find a new host
I believe in relatively unmoving movers. But ultimately the prime mover is pure possibility; or the absence of impossibility. Impossibility of impossibility, that is the infinite regress; the logic of positive existence receding infinitely deep into what we are; hence, affirmation in the Nietzschean sense is a prerequisite for stable knowledge.
Knowledge is always moving. Meaning creeps into words and leaves them, like summer a tree.
Consciousness/information/knowledge is always moving.
That is how it is processed.
What is unclear is, why it is at this particular point in time, and why it was at the particular points of time before it, and why does it keep moving forward, as it’s - once reality - fades, as if everything is meaningless.
Consciousness does not move; neurons do, but they aren’t the same thing as consciousness.
Things move because there is a cause that made them move.
You can link things back to each other in an orderly sequence.
The physical universe is finite, therefore infinite regress of moving entities is false.
There was a beginning (to the physical universe), but the universe is not merely
physical. Whatever the prime mover is, it’s not material, nor in motion;
it’s an eternal, static reality that underlies everything.
It does not move, thus infinite regress of cause and effect is nullified.
The unmoved mover would still be a first instance of all motion, A causer of causality? [paradox]
Because the universe is finite, we think reality is, but the universe was itself infinite at one time, so we have to surely see the fundamentals as eternals. Ergo there wont be a prime mover where there is no beginning.
It all just happens and always has and will happen.
I am certain that isn’t true. Why do you think it is true? Because they told you? The same “they” who have been wrong about the cosmos for thousands of years?
I don’t see how those two relate. Whether the universe is finite or not (and again, I am certain that it is not), what does that have to do with infinite regression? Why couldn’t a finite universe have always existed?
That I am certain of.
Again, what does a prime mover have to do with the impossibility of infinite regression of motion???
Because it has a finite amount of energy + entropy + expansion such that particles eventually become to far apart to be affecting. Not to mention that it did have a beginning, which does leave an infinite regress prior to it. if cyclical, then you have to count [and contrast to the infinite] how many cycles could have existed prior to and after it, where there will always be a given amount prior to and after, and a first instance - the very first universe. Then that has the same philosophical problem as only having a single instance of universe, in terms of beginnings.
You are referring to an infinitely expanding universe. Just because its finite doesn’t mean that it is expanding (which it isn’t, btw).
No. What makes you think there would have to be a first?
It’s not, really, a paradox. I don’t find it perplexing at all; makes perfect sense.
The physical universe had a beginning, but reality itself is eternal.
The “Prime Mover” is the primary cause of all motion and is eternal. Something cannot be a cause of something else without that something else appearing, else it really isn’t the cause. Because the primary cause of all motion is eternal, motion itself must also be eternal.
The Prime Mover did not begin the universe, but rather is at the very foundation of any and all motion (aka “spirit”). The physical universe is made entirely of the changing, the motion itself, physical spirit. And such motion continues eternally because the Prime Mover for it is eternal (yet not itself physical).
God farted existence into being where the great mystery has been finally solved by our very own Erik.
This finally solves that whole essence into being mumbo jumbo once and for all.
JSS,
Made of movement, huh? Chaotic affecting patterns of fluxing movement which values deeply.
Definitional logic is that of motion, not movement. 
I don’t get “it.”
I’ve just thought of something for all the objective pseudo religious creationists out there.
…Being and flatulence…
Precisely, although “Affectance” is a better term.
I have no idea what that meant.
You don’t because definitional logic is questionable. That is why movement can not be defined, hence it is not of consciousness, therefore, Parmenidies was right. There is only appearent knowledge. Knowledge of movement is appearance, as is knowledge it’s self. Reality is different.
If everything is caused, then cause itself had a cause, but even more importantly, causelesness has a cause?!?!?