Special Relativity- a Special case of Infinite Regress

In my previous post I had the opportunity to say some things about the phenomenon of infinite regress which I called ‘reduction to infinity.’ I may just remind that it has to do with the way the human mind works:

1) We have an idea that although it can be the result of other thoughts it is nevertheless unprecedented.

2) Trying to explain its origin we regress to previous thoughts so that any of them is a result of any previous one.

3) We are forced to stop at an arbitrary point and to admit that logic is not able to understand both the world and itself.

This infinitely regressive aspect of logic expands to scientific (i.e. logical) theories, otherwise there can’t be any connection between human reasoning and the world. This is what I realized studying a special case in modern science, namely special relativity. Because the ‘relativity’ we recognize at the connection of our experience with ‘real’ space and time points directly to the lack of synchronization. Imagine this: In order to synchronize our clock with somebody else’s clock, we have to send a signal (i.e. a light signal). But when the second clock receives the signal some time will have elapsed. If the second clock tries now to synchronize with a third clock (or back with us) there will be a further time difference and so on…

Einstein explained and calculated this difference by assuming a constant (i.e. finite) speed of light. This may be helpful, as well as experimentally tested but not necessary. Because, on the other hand, quantum mechanics has discovered phenomena (e.g. quantum entanglement) that are instantaneous by nature. Of course we can interpret such phenomena by arguing that information (i.e. a light signal) cannot travel faster than light but then we cannot understand what instantaneity is and how it works...

For more:

Special Relativity- a Special case of Infinite Regress

Reduction to infinity

There is a common fallacy with regard to human reasoning. We assume that our logic is powerful, in fact so powerful and valid that it is above the ability of all other creatures, even above any other kind of 'information processes. We assume that there is nothing that we can't explain and that all we need is time.

But the fact is that we cannot prove what we have already assumed: How can we prove that there isn't (or that there is) something outside logic? We can only assume it and then test if we are right or wrong, but we didn't use any proof in the first place. We can say this: 'Since we asked ourselves if there is something outside logic, this thing must have existed beforehand, so it wasn't an achievement of any logical deduction.'

So the main problem with logic is that it cannot prove itself. This is another way of expressing Goedel's theorem. When we build a syllogism asking for example 'where do we come from?' then we trap ourselves into an infinite procedure where God (or more generally a First Cause) may have created us and the universe, and another God who created God and so on...

On the other hand if we decide to take a 'stop' this stop is of course arbitrary: The universe (or God) has always existed. This may solve our infinite problem but only temporarily because here comes again the question: Who come that we gave such an explanation with our 'simple' logic? What other properties could thought possess in order to understand spontaneity and eternity?

I really don't know what could there be 'outside' our logical realm but the most incredible thing is that we may understand...


For more:

Reduction to Infinity