Infinite regress.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

So I read a little bit about this on wikipedia.

How does one justify belief in something?

Is there ever a point where you can stop asking "Why do you believe that?".

I suppose we would eventually end up at the big bang, but what then? The question doesn't go away. What caused the big bang? Is there anything that just is? Can A justify B, and C justify B, and C be justified by A? Or is that just a tautology and nothing more?

I'd be interested to hear some reactions.

-Alex

[RedLenin]

What caused the big bang?
Here is a Marxist alternative to the traditional concept of the big bang.
Reason in Revolt - The Big Bang (http://www.marxist.com/science/bigbang.html)


Is there anything that just is?
Yes. The problem of the infinite regress will always exist unless we propose that something is infinite. With Dialectical Materialism, that necessary infinite is a process rather than a static thing. Essentially the universe, matter in motion, is is an infinite process. The universe, as matter, evolves dialectically. There are long drawn-out periods of quantitative change and sudden, rapid episodes of qualitative change. Matter in motion is the base structure upon which everything rests.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RedLenin:


With Dialectical Materialism, that necessary infinite is a process rather than a static thing. Essentially the universe, matter in motion, is is an infinite process. The universe, as matter, evolves dialectically. There are long drawn-out periods of quantitative change and sudden, rapid episodes of qualitative change. Matter in motion is the base structure upon which everything rests.

Despite the fact that believers in Dialectical Materialism constantly say they do not impose their ideas on nature, that is in fact what you have just done, RedL

How for example do you know that the universe is an 'infinite' process, rather than one that lasts, say, hundreds of trillions of years?

And how do you know that matter and motion are so basic?

You might want to believe this; fine. Then that would amount to an act of faith.

But to assert this of the entire universe is to impose this idea on nature.

And there are many qualitative changes in nature that are not the least bit sudden.

Melting/solidifying metal and rock, for example. There are many others.

So, Engels's First 'Law' is not much use.

More details here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm

[ComradeRed]

Infinite regress is a product of thinking in terms of absolutes. That's not the case; instead things are relational!

Relative to me, this question is stupid; relative to RedLenin, it has to do with dialectics; etc. etc. etc. It's relative to the observer.

Now different observers have different information and when two observers compare information, it's useless because the information is relative not absolute!

(Mathematical Jargon: the Yoneda lemma does not equate to the sigma algebra of the arrows to an object.)

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Causation is proven to be a universal principle - it is just assumed to be. You should not assume the big bang requires a cause.

To pose a possibility explanation for your question, I will propose a circle. A causes B and B causes C while C causes A. Them problem, then is eliminated. You can ask why the circularity exists or what caused it to exist. However, that is a misleading question since causation is not proven to be a universal principle. Furthermore, there is the possibility of universal circularity. Rather, every question is answered by circularity. This is not a very materialist solution - but in the lack of material evidence we can only propose such solution. Therefore, you have choices, as I see it:

Universal circularity or universal causation. One produces infinite regress and is an infinitely more complex solution than the other. Occam's Razor says to choose the first.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dooga:


Occam's Razor says to choose the first.

Ockham's razor is a less secure principle than the principle of causation.

And, there is no evidence that a single scientist has ever used this useless 'razor', invented by a medieval nominalist.

Finally, you are all confusing a question of origins with a logical problem about explanation.

Whether everything had, or did not have, an origin is itself a question that lacks a sense (since it is not clear what could or could not count as 'everything' (see my Essay on the dubious 'Totality' of dialectics), or indeed as an origin of it), but what does or does not count as an infinite regress is a problem associated with our attempt to grapple with explanation; as such therefore this has only an indirect link with origins, and would still recur even if we gave up trying to explain where 'everything' came from.

This is because this problem is connected with the nature of a proposition, not reality itself -- i.e., how we try to represent things to ourselves.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 04, 2006 06:05 pm
Dooga:


Occam's Razor says to choose the first.

Ockham's razor is a less secure principle than the principle of causation.

And, there is no evidence that a single scientist has ever used this useless 'razor', invented by a medieval nominalist.
Really? So you've asked every scientist whether they use Ockham's razor? You know as well as I do that it is well-established within scientific circles. If you disregard Ockham's razor (accepting the conclusion that makes less assumptions), I don't know how we can have a reasonable debate.

What is your criticism of Ockham's razor? I don't care who it is named after, by the way, but whether or not is is helpful in discovering what is true.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dooga:


So you've asked every scientist whether they use Ockham's razor?

For a change, you might like to read what I said; I merely asserted that there was no evidence that any had.

Of course, if you know different, I am sure you will be happy to share what you know with us.


You know as well as I do that it is well-established within scientific circles.

I know people mouth off about it without giving it much thought -- a bit like you, in fact.


If you disregard Ockham's razor (accepting the conclusion that makes less assumptions), I don't know how we can have a reasonable debate.

Of course, that is not Ockham's razor.

You might like to find out what it is before you mouth off any more.


What is your criticism of Ockham's razor?

We have covered this several times in other threads; you need to pay attention.


I don't care who it is named after, by the way, but whether or not is is helpful in discovering what is true.

Except you 1) do not seem to know what it is, and 2) like to follow fashion and make vague gestures toward it.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Ockham's razor (in the science scientists use it) is as I defined. Please provide your definition of what it is, then. Furthermore, you criticized my earlier post because I was using an unreliable principle. Wouldn't it be obvious that I was using a different definition of Ockham's razor, then, if my argument required this definition to be valid? Again, please define Ockham's razor - you should be able to do it with few words. According do dictionary.com:

A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Also called law of parsimony.

Clearly I am the one using the established definition. If that definition is false, it is up to you to display this.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dooga:


Ockham's razor (in the science scientists use it) is as I defined.

You did not define it, you loosely characterised it, and rather poorly, too.

If you cannot be bothered to check the right version (there are in fact several), I should care.

Dooga now:


A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly.

Dooga before:


If you disregard Ockham's razor (accepting the conclusion that makes less assumptions

Assumptions are propositional, entities are not.

[It is in fact impossible to quantify assumptions (so you could never tell whether theory A made/relied on less assumptions than B), but it is possible to quantify entities.]

If you do not know the difference, then you are in no position to use either version (the correct one and your invented one)

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I always thought that you gave the two ideas equal merit before applying the razor. Thus, you either count in entities or assumptions. In that case, it makes little difference. You accept the theory that proposes less entities.

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:


I always thought that you gave the two ideas equal merit before applying the razor. Thus, you either count in entities or assumptions. In that case, it makes little difference. You accept the theory that proposes less entities.

Well, it was never about assumptions (since it is impossible to specfify how many one is making -- you are invited to try to count the assumptions you are now making, or the ones Newton made, or Galileo, or...), and it is not about equal merit (a subjective notion at best).

Certainly you are closer when you mention entities, but since these are theory-sensitive too, they are difficult to tease out as well.

In the end, it all revolves around that even vaguer notion 'simplicity'; but since no one has been able to define this 'concept' in non-question-begging terms, this Razor turns out to be rather blunt.

Finally, why should nature care what we think is simple (even if we knew what we thought was simple)?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Well I usually use it in cases where it's acknowledged by both 'sides' that there isn't evidence either way, thus making it equal. This eliminates the subjectivity at least to a degree, yes?

The obvious example is the God hypothesis, there can never be direct evidence against one, since it's supposed to be unobservable. This is a double edged sword, because it also means there can't be direct evidence for a God either. Hence, due to the equal lack of evidence, we can discard the God hypothesis.


Finally, why should nature care what we think is simple (even if we knew what we thought was simple)?

Well it doesn't, of course, nature isn't capable of caring in itself... The razor as far as I can see is a best guess where we are otherwise ignorant. It's not claimed to have found some amazing theory that was waiting to be discovered, it's just a method of distinguishing between bad theories and good, which seems to work, by and large.

-Alex

[forza_che]

The infinite regress theory is certainly an interesting one presented by sceptics.

In the end there is no real way to defeat the global sceptics of knowledge who propose this theory, you can only look at it in the way you think of knowledge.

Rationalists believe all we can know is the thoughts of our mind. Such as 'cogito ergo sum' presented by Descartes, 'I think therefore I am'. This is the ultimate piece of foundational knowledge that can't really be disputed. Rationalists believe that since on certain occassions our senses(ie. sight) have shown themselves liable to trickery(ie. optical illusions) then we can never really trust what they are telling us and therefore we can only really have knowledge of what our mind produces.

Empiricists believe that we can only gain knowledge through our senses and therefore they believe any knowledge our senses tell us counts as real knowledge.

There is no real way to defeat the infinite regress theory.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:


Well I usually use it in cases where it's acknowledged by both 'sides' that there isn't evidence either way, thus making it equal. This eliminates the subjectivity at least to a degree, yes?

Depends on what you mean by 'subjectivity'.


Well it doesn't, of course, nature isn't capable of caring in itself...

Well, my 'anthropomorphic' way of putting this was meant to suggest to you the question: why should nature conform to our notions of simplicity, even if we could decide what 'simplicity meant.

Why can't nature be more complex than we think? [Even if we knew what 'complex' meant.]


The razor as far as I can see is a best guess where we are otherwise ignorant. It's not claimed to have found some amazing theory that was waiting to be discovered, it's just a method of distinguishing between bad theories and good, which seems to work, by and large.

Except, there is no evidence that scientists actually use this 'principle', and much to suggest they do not.

Nor any that it 'works'.

[peaccenicked]

Occam's razor is not a scientific law. Infinite regress, at least, as it is noticed subjectively speaking, is people claiming that they know what they are talking about ad nauseam.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Peace:


Occam's razor is not a scientific law. Infinite regress, at least, as it is noticed subjectively speaking, is people claiming that they know what they are talking about ad nauseam.

A bit like you, then.