Talk:Infinite regress

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

text: Yes, they cover the same basic information. Teishin (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No for reasons covered by Coelacan.  WP:Not paper.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge with "regress argument"? 

message: "Distinction is made between infinite regresses that are "vicious" and those that are not." Does anybody have references for this? And who was when the first to distinguish explicitly between "vicious" (or malign) and benign (harmless) infinite regresses? 81.3.214.196 (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  vicious and not vicious 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Optics? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "adequate?" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  attribution needed? 

message: Amusing, but the self-referential link isn't actually an example of infinite regress. 99.246.107.22 (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: @99.246.107.22 I agree that there's a fine line to walk when adding humor to scholarly text but this is definitely harmless. I even argue that a touch of humor is absolutely vital to the health of Wikipedia. Jkohnstad (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  see also: infinite regress 

message: This article says:
:: Distinction is made between infinite regresses that are "vicious" and those that are not.
But nothing in the article explains the difference! Michael Hardy (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  vicious and non-vicious regresses 

message: If we want to ask "How the universe has appeared?" and are hearing an answer like "The universe was made by God", we may ask "Who had created the God?". If the answer is "They were created", we have Infinite regress. And this answer became impossible and therefore False. If the answer is "They were always", we have an unnecessary level of reasons, because if we allow something to "be always", we can just say "The Universe was always". Here, by Okkam's razor, we have no any necessary to mind any God in this problem. So, we need no "God" at all to have the Universe! 
This can be another one good example of a popular topic, related to infinite regress. --Nashev (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  God as a creator of the universe 

message: This entire section is crap. It's just some dude writing a forum post in wikipedia form. It's asking the reader a question, for crying out loud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.45.250 (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SOFIXIT. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarian free will