14 Facts About Infinite regress

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.

Traditionally, it was often assumed without much argument that each infinite regress is vicious but this assumption has been put into question in contemporary philosophy.

Infinite regress arguments have been made in various areas of philosophy.

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.

Once the Infinite regress has started, there is no way of stopping it since a new entity has to be introduced at each step in order to make the previous step possible.

An infinite regress argument is an argument against a theory based on the fact that this theory leads to an infinite regress.

Traditionally, it was often assumed without much argument that each infinite regress is vicious but this assumption has been put into question in contemporary philosophy.

The vice of an infinite regress can be local if it causes problems only for certain theories when combined with other assumptions, or global otherwise.

For example, an otherwise virtuous Infinite regress is locally vicious for a theory that posits a finite domain.

In some cases, an infinite regress is not itself the source of the problem but merely indicates a different underlying problem.

One way to assess the viciousness of this Infinite regress is to distinguish between local and global explanations.

Infinite regress is non-inferentially justified in believing that she is in pain because she is directly acquainted with the pain.

The first school, assuming that there is no way of knowing other than by demonstration, maintain that an infinite regress is involved, on the ground that if behind the prior stands no primary, we could not know the posterior through the prior : if on the other hand – they say – the series terminates and there are primary premises, yet these are unknowable because incapable of demonstration, which according to them is the only form of knowledge.