Aristotle and Prime Mover Problem

[worir4]

Hi, i don't think this is infringement of the rules of the forums, sorry if it is.

I learned about Aristotle's theory of the Prime Mover today and my teacher said the reason he came up with it was that Aristotle was against the idea of infinite regression so he came up with the first cause, the Prime Mover.

Now i have been thinking and the Prime Mover doesn't solve the problem of infinite regression.

Could there not be an infinite number of causes and effects. For example imagine the digit 0.9 as a cause and 1 as the first cause (Prime Mover) if you add all the 0.9' together then Aristotle believes you get 1. However 0.9 recurring will not reach 1 no matter how many 9 you add. Just like this no matter how far back you go in causes you will never reach the first cause. So then if this is true then Aristotle has not solved his problem of infinite regression.

Am i right or have i misunderstood something?

P.S

Sorry if you can't under stand what i am trying to say, it is difficult for me to put this in words.

Edited October 7, 2014 by worir4

[CaptainKipard]

IIRC 0.9999...recurring = 1

But anyway what do these numbers have to do with an infinite regression regress of causality?

Edited October 8, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[worir4]

IIRC 0.9999...recurring = 1

But anyway what do these numbers have to do with an infinite regression of causality?

It was the only way that i could think of expressing what i ment.

How does 0.9... equal to 1?

[Dodgey]

Not 0.9. 0.9999 recurring. Basically 1/3 = 0.333333 recurring. (1/3)*3 = 1 however 0.333333 recurring *3 = 0.99999 recurring. Therefor 0.9999 recurring = 1.

[worir4]

Not 0.9. 0.9999 recurring. Basically 1/3 = 0.333333 recurring. (1/3)*3 = 1 however 0.333333 recurring *3 = 0.99999 recurring. Therefor 0.9999 recurring = 1.

Is that not just because the number is so small that it is just practically 1?

Any way it was a bad example. What i mean is that the causes that go back to the first cause are infinite in them selves. So Aristotle still has infinite regression.

[razark]

If you say "Well, there's no infinite regress because I say there's a prime mover", you've just defined infinite regress away. It's no longer infinite, because at some point you say "There's the beginning!"

As for 0.999... being 1, it's not "just practically 1". It is 1. There's quite a few proofs of it.

[Red Iron Crown]

0.999... is definitely equal to 1. Not approaching it asymptotically, but equal to it. Wiki has some simple proofs of it.

My favorite:

x = 0.999...

10x = 9.999...

10x = 9 + x

9x = 9

x = 1

[rtxoff]

The decimal number system obviously has some weaknesses.

[Red Iron Crown]

The decimal number system obviously has some weaknesses.

How so? "0.999..." is just another way of expressing "1", just as "5/5" or "-i²" are.

[CaptainKipard]

OP can you rephrase your question then?

Afaik the problem of infinite regress is still unsolved.

[worir4]

OP can you rephrase your question then?

Afaik the problem of infinite regress is still unsolved.

That is what i mean. It is still infinite. You can can the Prime Mover is the first cause but there could be an infinite number of causes before it. You can keep going back with small causes but you wont reach the first cause.

My question is are there an infinite number of causes before the Prime Mover.