Talk:Infinite regress

merge with "regress argument"?

Shouldn't this be merged with regress argument? --AceMyth 00:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. I'm going to say no, because as I understand it, the regress argument is a general problem in epistemology as a whole, while an infinite regress typically refers to a specific problem that arises in a specific discussion. An infinite regress can arise outside of epistemology, too (assuming that anything is truly outside of epistemology). For example, in morality, divine command theory as an answer to Euthyphro's dilemma appears to suffer from an infinite regress: if the divine imparts morality, what makes the divine moral? The divine commands that the divine is moral. But what makes that command moral? Etc. — Coelacan | talk 00:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

vicious and not vicious

Apparently some regresses are considered "vicious" and others not. Can someone elaborate on what these terms mean, and what are some criteria used to distinguish? I'm going to add a definition I've found, but I'm by no means well informed about this. — Coelacan | talk 00:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Optics?

Does the session on optical recursion belong in the philosophy article?

And if the optical type of infinite regress is appropriate for this article, surely also the computer-programming type? (In programming, an infinite regress occurs when a recursive routine is written without a terminating condition, or with a terminating condition which (in some circumstances at least) is never met; such a routine exits via a crash, or forced termination by the error handlers, instead of a graceful exit by climbing back up the call stack, as a properly-written recursive routine does.) -- 80.176.249.177 (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"adequate?"

Is this article biased? Is it really the case that using an infinite regress to explain an idea warrants an incomplete explanation? There are some objections to the cosmological argument that incorporate the idea of an infinite regress of causes, say, as not insufficient but normal, comparing it to the way we explain anything in every day life: we explain things in every day life with explanations that incorporate other explanations that incorporate other explanations... and so on -- an infinite regress of explanations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ellenx (talk • contribs).

It is not true that our explanations of everyday events have a problem of infinite regress. As Richard Carrier explains here, our actual experiences reduce to statements that are "properly basic". "To say something is "properly basic" is to declare that it's something we get to assume without needing a reason to believe it.... For example, the fact that our thoughts and 'interpretations' exist at the moment we experience them is undeniable, regardless of whether they are true or correct, and therefore our belief in the existence of those thoughts and interpretations is properly basic." So even if you are a brain in a vat, or solipsistically the only thing in existence, it is tautological that your experience exists, because you are experiencing it. So there's no infinite regress in epistemology. — coelacan talk — 16:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

attribution needed?

In the Aristotle's Answer section, the initial line is a the start of a quote reading Some[attribution needed] hold that, owing to the necessity of knowing the primary premisses...

Can you really demand attribution in a quote? 206.255.127.192 (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)