From: {$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk   
      
   On 05/01/2026 01:18, John Harshman wrote:   
   >>>> I don't have any issue with the logic regarding their first claim, it   
   >>>> is essentially the 'First Cause' argument that goes back to at least   
   >>>> Aristotle and was taken up by Thomas Aquinas. I don't think   
   >>>> materialists have been able to put up any substantive argument against   
   >>>> this; all they seem to have to offer is that of infinite regression   
   >>>> which I do not regard as a valid argument - not least when scientists   
   >>>> accept an end to regression other areas. For example, keeping dividing   
   >>>> any piece of material into two is a form of potentially infinite   
   >>>> regression but scientists recognise that you get to a point where the   
   >>>> piece of material gets to the smallest possible size - the Planck   
   >>>> constant - and can be divided no further; i.e. the regression is not   
   >>>> infinite and has a starting point. I don't see dividing a piece of   
   >>>> material should be excluded from infinite regression but First Cause   
   >>>> should not.   
   >>>   
   >>> I don't see any reason why lack of infinite regression in one thing   
   >>> should require us to reject it in all things.   
   >>   
   >> I didn't say reject it in all things; I said that I can't see why it   
   >> should be invoked in the 'First Cause ' but not in the case of the   
   >> Planck constant. Can you offer a reason why it should?   
      
   The Planck *constant* per se is not an attempt to avoid infinite regress   
   (in the division of material). It originated as a hack to avoid the   
   implications of infinitely small wavelengths with respect to black body   
   radiation, and was defined by the relationship between energy and   
   frequency of electromagnetic quanta.   
      
   The Planck constant turns up more widely in quantum mechanics, e.g. in   
   the Heisenberg uncertainty principles.   
      
   >   
   > Can you offer a reason why what we do in one case should be the same as   
   > what we do in a quite different case? I don't see the Planck distance as   
   > an attempt to avoid infinite regress at all. Then again, I'm not a   
   > physicist.   
      
   The Planck *length* is a natural (natural being defined as constructed   
   from physical constants) unit of length based on a combination of the   
   Planck constant (divided by 2*pi), the speed of light and the   
   gravitational constant. It happens to be (perhaps not by coincidence) a   
   scale which has other physical significance, e.g. to measure something   
   of that size requires so much energy that you create a black hole.   
      
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#Planck_length   
      
   It was atoms that the Greeks introduced to avoid the infinite division   
   of materials.   
      
   It strikes me that infinite division is on the other side of the coin to   
   infinite regression. The former relates to the infinitely small   
   (infinitesimals) and the latter to the infinitely large (infinities). An   
   infinitely large distance is a closer but not perfect match to infinite   
   regression (you can pack an infinite number of causal links into finite   
   time).   
      
   --   
   alias Ernest Major   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)