4 ms·
> [...] because of the principal of causality and the impossibility of infinite regress, it's the natural logical conclusion. It's only the "natural logical co
by adwn 6y ago
> [...] because of the principal of causality and the impossibility of infinite regress, it's the natural logical conclusion.
It's only the "natural logical conclusion" under certain assumptions or axioms. For example, "infinite regress is impossible" is one such assumption – an assumption which isn't any more natural than "a first cause is impossible".
> If so tell me, such that I can write an AI which infinitely paraphrases the same answer until you get it.
Please don't be a jerk.
- jedimind 6y ago> It's only the "natural logical conclusion" under certain assumptions or axioms. For example, "infinite regress is impossible" is one such assumption – an assumption which isn't any more natural than "a first cause is impossible". False. It's neither an assumption nor an axiom, it's a proof by contradiction. > Please don't be a jerk. If gently pushing back against deceptive rhetoric derailing the discussion by repeatedly ignoring arguments is classified as being a "jerk' while the offending behavior is not, then it's clearly the judgment that is biased and applied unevenly.