If you want a physics without causation in a greater universe outside our universe then our universe would never have come into being. An uncaused larger system would be infinite regress because it always existed, but you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. If the larger system is timeless like God would be, then simply compare God to your timeless universe, for a mind is needed to create a mind, therefore God trumps your timeless universe. Bouncing particles alone can never produce self-consciousness, volition, feelings, conscience and intuition. The lesser can never produce the greater.
You had to have come into being before now if there was infinite regress, because you had an eternity to do so. That's the reason. Pretty simple. You also would never have existed, because eternity would still be going on for eternity, thus never reaching this point. So your theory is wrong on both accounts and that it contradicts itself. What was the reason? I just said, because of eternity still going on or having had an eternity to come into being. You keep avoiding this point, asking me to repeat it yet again. Why be obnoxious?So what. So what if I had an eternity to come into being, that does not mean I had to, especially if the conditions did not permit my existence. Of course infinite possibilities changes that. If before the present moment, an infinite past played out an infinite amount of possible scenarios in which I did not exist, then it doesn't matter if I had an eternity to come into being because the infinite amount of actual scenarios did not include me. But since my existence is a possible scenario, then there is nothing that prohibits me from happening somewhere along eternity. All you have done is create a false contradiction and when I ask you to show your logic all you do is just repeat your assertion. If I said 'infinite regress is possible, because eternity lead up to my existence right now' and you ask me to explain how I think my existence right now proves infinite regress, and all I do is repeat what I said, that is not explaining anything. It is using the assertion to prove the assertion, that is a logical fallacy. But that is all you do.
Repeating the claim is not the proof of the claim, but the proof of the claim is the proof. You keep asking the same question after the answer was already given why you would have happened already, since you would have had an eternity to do so. It is also true you would never have existed, because in an infinite regress a past eternity would still be going on for forever never reaching this point, since it would be going on for eternity. However many scenarios could be played out makes no difference, because eternity is eternity which would still be going on thus never reaching this point. I am just taking you on your own words when you say there was an eternity going on in the past. If there was an eternity going on in the past then you will have to accept the consequences that go with that in your theory.Like I said before, repeating your claim to prove your claim is not showing any thing. Why if I had an eternity to do so, do you conclude that I must have existed already? I want you to explain why you come to that conclusion, not for you to just keep repeating it. Furthermore, your second claim that eternity would still be going on therefore the past would never reach this moment doesn't even make sense. If eternity has the capacity to play out an infinite amount of possible scenarios, why could this not be one of them? Saying because the past would be going on for eternity, so it would never reach this point, is the same as saying no points in time ever happen in eternity, because an eternal past would never reach any point. But that is clearly illogical because eternity is an infinite amount of points in time, and the only moment when time actually exists is in the present.
Bookmarks