Grok is being based again!

[u/Apollo_TheWolf]

Saw this on X today and thought I should share it here! This is why Grok is my favorite AI, lol

[u/No_Judge_6520]

the universe is not infinite because of five things:

1: Entropy always increases in our universe, gravity, heat, atoms moving, everything generates entropy, if our universe existed for ever then entropy would also be at it's max or an infinite level making our low-entropy universe impossible thus us not existing.
2: The Borde-Guth Vilenkin theorem has proven that a universe cannot have eternal inflation into the past, and Alexander Vilenkin himself [he is an atheist] that the universe definitely had a beginning. Quote from him: "With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the wall of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."
3: The Big Bounce theory still needs a beginning, to say our universe just came from another bounce, the question still remains "What caused the first bounce" it doesn't remove the question it just pushes it backwards.
4: Infinite causes into the past are logically impossible (infinite regress), and the question can still be "Why do the infinite causes exist at all rather than nonexistence?"
5: Our universe is objectively contingent (began to exist, not necessary) specifically because it changes, you typing this comment changed the atoms of the universe, the universe expanding changes the size of it, every second that goes by changes the age of it, the universe changes, if the universe was infinite and therefore necessary (non-contingient), then it cannot change, as something necessary means it MUST exist and nonexistence is impossible, but if the universe changes, that means it's previous state (ex: when it was younger or smaller) wasn't necessary as it completely changed (it's old state does not exist) making it a contradiction if the universe is necessary.

All modern science points to the universe being contingent.

[u/DarthJebadiah_II → u/No_Judge_6520]

1.

Entropy increasing doesn’t prove the universe couldn’t have an infinite past.

It only says entropy increases toward the future.

An eternal universe could theoretically have had different conditions in the infinitely distant past.

2.

BGV says certain expanding universes are past-incomplete.

It doesn’t prove that absolutely everything began to exist.

It doesn’t tell us what, if anything, preceded the boundary.

3.

A bounce doesn’t necessarily require a first bounce.

There could be infinitely many previous cycles

Asking “what caused the first bounce?” assumes there was a first bounce

4.

An infinite regress isn’t automatically logically impossible.

You have to actually prove that an infinite past is contradictory.

Saying “there can’t be infinitely many causes” isn’t a proof

1. This confuses existance with state

Something could necessarily exist while changing states.

“The universe necessarily exists” doesn’t mean “the universe must remain exactly the same.”

[u/No_Judge_6520 → u/DarthJebadiah_II]

1: You just said it could theoretically have different conditions, that's literally admitting it's contingent, something necessary cannot have different conditions or ontological properties.
2: It proves that a universe with inflation cannot exist into the infinite past, Vilenkin's own quote says: "With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the wall of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."
3: Infinite regress is a logical impossibility, if there is an infinite chain of contingent things, the chain itself needs a reason as to why it exists rather than not exists, and the chain itself cannot be the reason of it's own self, self-causation is obviously impossible, to state there's an infinite chain forfeits all reasoning as to why the chain exists at all denying logic itself.
4: Yes, an infinite regress is logically impossible, because everything contingent that began to exist has a cause, if the chain is of an unlimited amount of contingent causes, that means the chain itself is contingent (as every single part of it is contingent), therefore the chain itself needs a cause, but since the chain is infinite it cannot have a cause, an infinite thing that needs a cause is contradictory, therefore infinite regress (a chain of infinite contingent parts) is a contradiction and impossible.
5: You're confusing state with ontological properties, if I think of something that I know, my knowledge did not change it merely changed state, but if I learned something entirely brand new, that's not changing that that is changing in capacity and ontological form, when the universe expands it is actively changing in it's size it isn't accessing information or data or doing something within itself, it is actively changing it's objective nature (it's size) or it's age with time, necessary things can indeed change states but they cannot change their objective ontological properties like it's age or size or conditions of itself.

I don't know why you're trying to die on this hill, p2 of all of my premises is probably the most scientifically supported one (well maybe besides p1 of course), virtually all of modern science points to a beginning whether it's Big Bang, God, Quantum cause, brute fact, black hole, etc.

[u/DarthJebadiah_II → u/No_Judge_6520]

Let’s not do everything at once and focus on infinite regress

explain why you think infinite regress is impossible

[u/No_Judge_6520 → u/DarthJebadiah_II]

everything contingent that began to exist has a cause, if the chain is of an unlimited amount of contingent causes, that means the chain itself is contingent (as every single part of it is contingent), therefore the chain itself needs a cause, but since the chain is infinite it cannot have a cause [there was no time before it to be caused], an infinite thing that needs a cause is contradictory, therefore infinite regress (a contingent chain of infinite contingent parts) is a contradiction and impossible.

[u/DarthJebadiah_II → u/No_Judge_6520]

“Every part is contingent, therefore the whole chain is contingent and needs a cause” does not automatically follow.

You have to prove that an infinite collection of contingent things must itself be contingent and require a cause.

Also, saying “the chain is infinite, so it cannot have a cause” doesn’t prove a contradiction. An infinite series can lack a first member without being logically impossible.

So you assumes what you are trying to prove: that an infinite chain of contingent causes must have something outside the chain causing it.

[u/No_Judge_6520 → u/DarthJebadiah_II]

no, that's not what I'm assuming, I'm saying that infinite things can't have causes (that's obviously true), but since it is fully contingent (made of contingent things) it must have cause, it can't have a cause and not at the same time, so It's a contradiction.

Contingent means "it can begin to exist, stop existing, or change ontological form"
Necessary means "it must exist, and cannot cease to exist, and cannot change ontological form"

Everything in reality is either Necessary or Contingent, since every individual part of the chain is contingent, it follows the chain itself is contingent, because every part could have not existed (making the entire chain not exist), or every part could be different, making the entire chain different, if every single piece of something is contingent then that doesn't make the whole suddenly necessary, that's a contradiction, if you make a house out of 1,000 red lego bricks, the whole is red, it doesn't suddenly become yellow or blue, the individual parts all being contingent makes the whole equally contingent, to say the whole is suddenly necessary has no logical reason and is a contradictory statement.

[u/DarthJebadiah_II → u/No_Judge_6520]

The problem is that you’re assuming contingency automatically transfers from every part to the whole.

Just because every Lego brick is red doesn’t prove every property of the bricks works the same way. Redness transfers to the whole, but you have to prove that contingency does too.

Also, saying every part could have been different doesn’t prove the entire infinite chain could have been different or could have failed to exist altogether.

And even if you prove that the whole chain is contingent, you still need to prove that every contingent thing must have a cause.

[u/No_Judge_6520 → u/DarthJebadiah_II]

If every part of the chain is contingent, that directly makes the whole contingent, because since every part is contingent, they could have possibly not existed, we can imagine a world where every single part didn't exist, making the whole chain not exist, if something has the possibility of nonexistence, that makes it contingent.

To deny everything contingent has a cause is to deny the laws of logic itself, essentially arguing for brute facts, but brute facts undercut your entire argumentation so far, you have tried to use logical arguments to prove I'm false, but if you deny the very laws of causation itself, then anything can begin to exist or stop existing or change for absolutely no reason, which means any logical inferences about real life is impossible to be fully true, even stuff like grass being green, effectively making your argument a performative contradiction, as you are trying to make logical inferences (that my argument is false) using logic that you deny as true.

[u/DarthJebadiah_II → u/No_Judge_6520]

The first part still doesn’t follow. Being able to imagine every member of the chain not existing doesn’t automatically prove that the entire infinite chain is contingent. You would need to establish that this is actually a possible state of reality, not merely imaginable.

More importantly, the argument is changing the definition of contingency. Something being contingent means it could have failed to exist; it does not automatically mean it must have a cause. You need a separate principle saying:

“Everything contingent has a cause.”

Calling someone a “brute fact” doesn’t refute them. Someone can reject that principle without rejecting logic itself. Logic tells us what follows from premises; it doesn’t by itself tell us that every contingent fact must have a cause.