Is an infinite regress incoherent? This crops up in debates over the cosmological argument. But it depends on what the cosmological argument is used to prove. Did the universe begin to exist? Is the universe contingent? Even if (ex hypothesi) the universe is eternal, it may still be contingent.
That said, suppose I'm standing in a hallway with an infinite row of dominos left and right. The dominos on my left have fallen. The dominoes on my right are standing, but about to fall, as the chain reaction continues apace.
But if an infinite number of dominoes has already fallen, why haven't all the dominos fallen? Why are any dominoes left standing? Given an infinite domino effect, why isn't the effect complete by now? Does it take more time? But an infinite amount of time already elapsed. Does it take more time than infinite time for the chain reaction to terminate? Why the break between past and future? Why is it not all in the past?
"Even if (ex hypothesi) the universe is eternal, it may still be contingent."
ReplyDeleteGood point! I think this is important to highlight.
It seems to me modern cosmological arguments like William Lane Craig's kalam argument depend on the universe having a beginning. Hence the need for supplemental arguments such as arguments for standard big bang cosmology and arguments against the possibility of an infinite regress.
However, suppose standard big bang cosmology is mistaken. Suppose the universe had no beginning. Suppose it is possible to have an infinite regress. Nevertheless, Leibniz's famous question remains: why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there an eternal universe rather than nothing?
As an aside, it seems to me it is possible to have an infinite regress at least in theory if not actuality (e.g. Zeno paradoxes).