Timeline for Why is infinite regress a problem for ontological explanations?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 3, 2017 at 19:30 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Feb 5, 2017 at 8:22 | |||||
| Apr 19, 2012 at 5:45 | vote | accept | Tommi | ||
| Apr 19, 2012 at 2:08 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackPhilosophy/status/192796745862877184 | ||
| Apr 17, 2012 at 18:33 | comment | added | Ron Maimon | Why is the infinite regress a problem? It goes up in complexity--- there is no one arguing that there is a strict upper limit to complexity is there? The main problem is the term "ontology". The question of "ontology" is logically positive meaningless in the sense of Carnap. The right formulations of philosophical start with positivistic things, and do not have any problems of this sort, as they are based on computation and physical law, both of which are solid terms that have precise definitions. | |
| Apr 17, 2012 at 17:38 | history | edited | Cody Gray | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body; edited title
|
| Apr 17, 2012 at 11:31 | answer | added | Michael Dorfman | timeline score: 5 | |
| Apr 17, 2012 at 11:00 | history | asked | Tommi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |