Don’t fear the regress
A goal of much of my work has been to combat the misguided fear of infinite regresses. Some infinite regresses are bad, but others are good. An example of a bad regress is the infinite series of prior choices that philosopher Galen Strawson says we’d need to make in order for us to be morally responsible for anything. Since none of us could complete an infinite series of choices, Strawson says no one is ever morally responsible. But avoiding this bad regress is easy: Contrary to Strawson, the ordinary concept of moral responsibility has never implied being able to make an infinite series of prior choices.
Among the good infinite regresses are infinite regresses of explanations, regresses that must exist in any non-magical universe. Without them, you get a mysterious world in which some events happen for no reason at all. An infinite regress of explanations may seem bad if you accept the principle “You can’t explain A by citing B unless you can also explain B.” But that principle is clearly false. Citing the inheritance of traits under selective pressure, Darwin genuinely explained how species arise, even though he couldn’t explain how traits get inherited and maintained. That explanation required the discovery of genetics.
Other good infinite regresses include the infinite ontological regresses in any universe that lacks unexplainable brute facts and magic. Any metaphysical substance, such as you, arose from and depends on an infinite series of substances that belong to infinitely many kinds. Otherwise, some things exist for no reason at all. (Section 4.2 of my book contains the details.)
The next time someone warns you to avoid an infinite regress, consider that it may be a regress to embrace rather than avoid.
