## Is the positing of an infinite regress a legitimate explanation in philosophy

*Are infinite regresses logically possible?*

Surely it's logically possible for infinitely many positive or negative integers to exist, and they represent a kind of infinite regress: for every negative integer, there's a smaller one; for every positive integer, there's a larger one. Even those who say that only *potentially* infinite collections (and not actually infinite collections) are possible must admit the possibility of infinite regresses of this numerical kind.

*Is the positing of an infinite regress a legitimate explanation in philosophy?*

I don't see why it couldn't be. It seems to me that the burden rests with whoever denies the acceptability of an infinite regress of explanations. Indeed, I think infinite regresses of explanations are *unavoidable* given some highly plausible assumptions.

- Log in to post comments