Philosophy Now Forum

Infinite regress of causes is sometimes invoked to negate the need for a first eternal cause.

So for example, instead of saying a chicken/egg regress must have a first beginning. We can simply say there was an infinite regress of chicken/eggs.

However, consider the special case of infinite regress where there is no change in the "thing" at every "link/generation". Now, since the "thing" has no origin whatsoever and the "thing" does not change at every "link/generation", then there is absolutely no more reason that we should have a chicken in the present than that we should have a frog or a fish in the present.

seems to me, the only solution is if there is nothing in the present.

Is this a valid refutation of explaining a chicken/egg with an infinite regress? (at least for the special case where there is no change, and assuming our human logic is reliable)

after all, it does illustrate that since the infinite regress has no origin, then anything resulting from it to the present is indeterminate (except for the trivial "nothing"). there's no better reason for it to be a chicken than for it to be a fish or frog, etc.

rayse wrote:Infinite regress of causes is sometimes invoked to negate the need for a first eternal cause.

So for example, instead of saying a chicken/egg regress must have a first beginning. We can simply say there was an infinite regress of chicken/eggs.

However, consider the special case of infinite regress where there is no change in the "thing" at every "link/generation". Now, since the "thing" has no origin whatsoever and the "thing" does not change at every "link/generation", then there is absolutely no more reason that we should have a chicken in the present than that we should have a frog or a fish in the present.

seems to me, the only solution is if there is nothing in the present.

Is this a valid refutation of explaining a chicken/egg with an infinite regress? (at least for the special case where there is no change, and assuming our human logic is reliable)

after all, it does illustrate that since the infinite regress has no origin, then anything resulting from it to the present is indeterminate (except for the trivial "nothing"). there's no better reason for it to be a chicken than for it to be a fish or frog, etc.

DNA is a complex contemplation...a pile of matter arranged in a barely fathomable complexity allowing it to be aware of the other matter.

i was referring to the origin of existence/the universe. chicken/egg is just an analogy for non-eternal existences. (assuming that the universe cannot just "pop" into existence from absolute nothingness

I know...just thought we should contemplate on the metaphysics of DNA.

Is infinite regress indeterminate?

Yes, i believe it is.