Metaphysical space is infinite [1], but not the size of any particular macroscopic body like a planet, a mountain, or a tree. As large as it might be relative to something else, every macroscopic object has a finite size. As far as technology-enhanced observation and experimentation suggests, they also break down into smaller and smaller masses/particles of matter, like molecules into atoms and atoms into nucleons and electrons. It would be impossible to ever know given human limitations if there is any such thing as a fundamental particle, a physical unit that does not reduce down to smaller units. Supposedly, electrons and quarks, which comprise the nucleon particles protons and neutrons, are elementary/fundamental particles, yet even if there are true elementary particles, electrons and quarks might not turn out to be them.
The contradictions of infinite regress [2], made true and knowable by the necessary truths of reason, would still by necessity be impossible here. There cannot be an infinite number of past moments because the present moment, which is absolutely certain, could never have arrived: it would have come after an infinite amount of time and infinity cannot be traversed because it never ends. However, starting from the macroscopic world, a chain of particles infinitely reducing in size, thus infinite in only one direction like time eternally continuing from a finite beginning moment, is different than the impossible concept of infinite units going in both directions (as with our macroscopic world also being contained within an endlessly increasing scale), or else the macroscopic scale would never arrive because it is neither the starting point at either end of the material composition chain.
A fixed starting point in the macroscopic world itself could always hypothetically be at least divided artificially by supernatural or technological means into smaller parts, though infinite regress itself is impossible. However, since the macroscopic scale (or some higher scale) would have to be the definitive starting point in this chain of physical composition in the same way that the first moment of time could hypothetically lead to an infinite number of following moments as their necessary starting point (only past-eternality is logically impossible), there would not be any sort of contradictory infinity here. Also, even a finite size and distance could always be divided into smaller and smaller units. There is never a point at which mathematically or physically a given size could never be or have been reduced by half or a third, for instance. This is also relevant to why it is logically possible for there to be no such thing as a fundamental particle although infinite regress is logically impossible.
This is the difference between the hypothetical of ever-dividing subatomic particles, which might or might not be true, and the utter logical impossibility of the "turtles all the way down" sort of one-directional infinity or the bi-directional infinity of time and the cosmos having no beginning point. Not knowing which material unit is or is not an elementary particle is not the same as no such thing existing, and we have no way to truly know the truth of this matter that transcends sensory perception, speculation, or hearsay. The necessary truths about infinite regress are still valid in every case and it could not have been any other way; they would otherwise not be necessary truths. The natural world could take a multitude of forms which are logically possible, none of which have to conform at the quantum level to macroscopic expectations--as long as they do not contradict logical necessities, subatomic objects and their physics could have a "bizarre" nature like a constant reduction to smaller sizes.
No comments:
Post a Comment