DISCUSSIONS

Infinite Regress

Infinite regress is a circular fallacy in which a belief is justified solely by another belief, which in turn is justified by yet another belief—creating a loop that never provides an actual answer. This approach ignores the origin of an argument’s motion, continuously shifting the question backward rather than resolving it.

In essence, a belief cannot be validated simply by invoking another belief, as beliefs are not facts. While some beliefs may incorporate factual elements, they remain interpretations, shaped by assumptions and perspectives rather than objective truths. The fallacy follows the structure of “A equals B because of A, which equals B because of A”—an argument that cycles ad nauseam without resolution.

How Infinite Regress Impacts Debates on Origins

A key demonstration of infinite regress occurs in discussions on the origin of the universe or the nature of causation:

• If one asks, “What created the universe?” and the reply is “God,” the follow-up question—“Who or what created God?”—merely extends the regression without resolving anything, leading to an endless chain of invented causes instead of acknowledging an initial uncaused cause.

• Similarly, if someone answers, “The universe was created by another universe,” the chain of causation continues ad infinitum, leaving no actual proof of any prior existence or an ultimate foundational reality.

Neither explanation offers resolution—instead, each response merely shifts the burden further back, avoiding a logical conclusion.

A Priori Assumptions: The Root of Infinite Regress

An additional fallacy that reinforces infinite regress is a priori assumptions, where a premise is presumed true without factual assessment. Both atheists and theists often fall into this mutual trap:

1. Theists may declare that God created everything, but when questioned about God’s origin, they may invoke another deity or metaphysical concept, failing to address the necessity of an uncaused cause.

2. Atheists may claim that another universe or cycle created the current one, yet when asked what created the prior universe, they continue the chain without offering tangible evidence for any previous existence.

Neither side arrives at an absolute, demonstrable answer, illustrating how regressive explanations only serve to postpone rational conclusions rather than establish them.

Why Extraordinary Claims Do Not Require Extraordinary Evidence

Contrary to popular belief, an extraordinary claim does not necessitate extraordinary evidence—it simply requires logical, reasonable, and demonstrable proof that is coherent within reality. The infinite regress argument fails because:

1. Space-time constraints define our premise – To conceive of a reality outside of space-time is meaningless to the question, as our understanding is limited to observable reality.

2. Ignoring diverse forms of causation – The fallacy dismisses dependent, accidental, or paradoxical causation, which plays a critical role in reality.

3. End results do not define initiating causes – One cannot retroactively apply current conditions as proof of prior causes without tangible reproducibility.

Additionally, the concept of the universe must be properly defined, as it can refer to totality (all things) or the observable, measurable universe. Without clarifying definitions, regress continues indefinitely.

How Some Physicists and Theoretical Physicists Fall into the Infinite Regress Trap

Despite the rigorous logic expected in physics, some physicists and theoretical physicists inadvertently fall into the infinite regress fallacy, particularly when addressing the origins of the universe, matter, and causality. Instead of arriving at a foundational first cause, they often push the question backward indefinitely, avoiding resolution.

1. The Infinite Regression of Matter

Some physicists argue that fundamental particles must themselves be composed of smaller structures, leading to an endless subdivision of matter. This reasoning suggests that no true fundamental particle exists, as each particle would require another underlying structure, resulting in an infinite chain of composition.

However, this approach fails logically, as an actualized infinity within every atom would be impossible. If matter were infinitely divisible, there would be no ultimate foundation, contradicting the principles of quantum mechanics, which define fundamental particles as indivisible units.

2. Theoretical Physics and the Cosmological Infinite Regress

In discussions on the origins of the universe, some physicists propose that our universe was created by another universe, which was created by yet another universe—continuing ad infinitum. This explanation never resolves the question of an initial cause, merely shifting the burden backward indefinitely.

Saint Thomas Aquinas addressed this issue in his cosmological argument, stating that causality must have a starting point—an uncaused cause. The failure to acknowledge this leads to an endless chain of hypothetical universes, none of which provide a definitive answer.

3. Misinterpretations of Quantum Mechanics and Multiverse Theories

Some physicists invoke multiverse theories to explain the existence of our universe, suggesting that an infinite number of universes exist, each spawning the next. However, this approach does not answer the fundamental question of origin—it merely extends the regress indefinitely by refusing to address or avoiding the question all together.

Additionally, certain interpretations of quantum mechanics suggest that reality is infinitely branching, leading to an infinite regress of possibilities. While intriguing, these theories fail to establish a foundational reality, instead relying on hypothetical constructs that evade resolution.

Conclusion: Avoiding the Trap of Infinite Regress

Infinite regress does not provide answers—it only delays resolution. The mistake lies in assuming that every cause requires another cause, rather than acknowledging necessary absolutes such as an initial uncaused cause or foundational reality. Recognizing logical limits, causation types, and paradoxes allows for rational inquiry instead of endless backward deflection.

Physicists and theorists who fall into infinite regress often do so because they avoid acknowledging an initial uncaused cause. Whether discussing matter, cosmology, or quantum mechanics, the failure to establish a foundational reality results in an endless loop of explanations that never provide a definitive answer.

Recognizing logical limits, causation types, and paradoxes allows for rational inquiry instead of endless backward deflection. Science must seek resolution, not perpetuate infinite regression as a stop plug to end debate just as some theists evoke the Almighty to suspend examining reality further.