Does contextuality result in an infinite regress?

Is an infinite regress possible?

The mere existence of an infinite regress by itself is not a proof for anything. So in addition to connecting the theory to a recursive principle paired with a triggering condition, the argument has to show in which way the resulting regress is vicious.

What is infinite regress example?

Examples: “The world is supported by four elephants standing on the back of a giant turtle, which is standing on the back of another giant turtle, which is standing on the back of another giant turtle…” Eggs exist because they are laid by chickens; and, of course, chickens are hatched from eggs.”

What is the infinite regress problem?

An infinite regress is a series of appropriately related elements with a first member but no last member, where each element leads to or generates the next in some sense. An infinite regress argument is an argument that makes appeal to an infinite regress.

See also  Exclusive Disjunction

What is epistemic regress?

In epistemology, the regress argument is the argument that any proposition requires a justification. However, any justification itself requires support. This means that any proposition whatsoever can be endlessly (infinitely) questioned, resulting in infinite regress.

What are the 5 proofs of God’s existence?

Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways to Prove the Existence of God

  • The First Way: Motion.
  • The Second Way: Efficient Cause.
  • The Third Way: Possibility and Necessity.
  • The Fourth Way: Gradation.
  • The Fifth Way: Design.

Does Infinity exist in math?

Although the concept of infinity has a mathematical basis, we have yet to perform an experiment that yields an infinite result. Even in maths, the idea that something could have no limit is paradoxical. For example, there is no largest counting number nor is there a biggest odd or even number.

What is the uncaused cause?

As formulated by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica, the uncaused cause argument is stated as follows: “Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause. This leads to a regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call God.”

Is infinite regress a logical fallacy?

It’s a fallacy because it is begging the question that is to say that it is a circular argument. Whether referring to the origins of the universe or any other regressive context, the answer simply moves the question back into infinite regress rather than answering it.

Is the past infinite?

There never was a time when the past became infinite because no set can become infinite by adding any finite number of members. So, if the past is infinite, then it has always been infinite.

See also  Is tautology for logic what theorems are for mathematics?

What is infinite regress in the cosmological argument?

An infinite regress is an infinite series of entities governed by a recursive principle that determines how each entity in the series depends on or is produced by its predecessor. An infinite regress argument is an argument against a theory based on the fact that this theory leads to an infinite regress.

Is Foundationalism possible without regress?

Foundationalism is false; after all, foundational beliefs are arbitrary, they do not solve the epistemic regress problem, and they cannot exist without other (justified) beliefs.

Can Foundationalism solve the regress problem?

I believe foundationalism provides the best answer to the epistemic regress problem. It is formed by accepting (1) and (3) as true and negating (2) as the conclusion. It could be state as follows: (1) It is possible that some proposition is evidentially supported.

How does Coherentism solve the epistemic regress problem?

Coherentism excludes such foundations by affirming that all justified beliefs are justified in virtue of their relations to other beliefs. Thus, on the coherentist solution to the regress problem no evidence chains terminate in immediately justified, foundational beliefs. In a sense, all justification is inferential.

Why is Coherentism better than Foundationalism?

Foundationalism claims that our empirical beliefs are rationally constrained by our non‐verbal experience. Non‐verbal experience is caused by events in the world. Coherentism suggests that empirical beliefs are rationally constrained only by other, further empirical beliefs.

What is Agrippa’s trilemma and what are the three choices?

Agrippa’s trilemma is three alternatives regarding the structure of justification, written by an ancient Greek philosopher, Agrippa. The trilemma states that: Our beliefs are unsupported, or an infinite chain of justification supports our beliefs, or a circular chain of justification supports our beliefs.

See also  How did first-order logic come to be the dominant formal logic?

What is Agrippa’s trilemma quizlet?

Agrippa’s Trilemma (1, 2[abc]3,4) (1) A proposition is justified only if a good argument can be given in its defense. (2) Any argument will either. a. Appeal to some premise in defense of which no further argument can.

Who came up with the trilemma?

The theory of the policy trilemma is frequently credited to the economists Robert Mundell and Marcus Fleming, who independently described the relationships among exchange rates, capital flows, and monetary policy in the 1960s.