Thanks a lot for your interest of the paper. I disagree with you here. In the examples you cite there are indeed laws governing the series that are left unexplained. But for one thing the foundationalist needs both a foundational item plus laws governing the series of items. For another thing, once you admit that infinity can do some explanatory work and need not be vicious (as I argue we should) you should be open to the idea that the laws governing the series are explained by meta-laws which are explained by meta-meta-laws etc, and that the infinite regress involved is not vicious (section 8).
Thanks, Alexandre! It's an honor to receive this comment from you.
If I may: on laws, I was thinking of a minimal notion of 'foundation' that could even be in terms of laws. However, you make a good point about the prospect of meta-laws in a non-vicious infinite regress, and I'll like to look into that more.
My present thought, for what it's worth, is that infinity can indeed do explanatory work without being vicious (just as you argue), *and* infinite chains (whether of laws or anything else) are explanatorily complete only if there is at least one item beyond the chain itself. In any case, I think there's more interesting work to be done here, and I'm grateful for your contribution on this area which invites me to continue to think more about it.
Thank you for your interest in my interest. I appreciate your work, and I really enjoyed this paper.
Thanks a lot. I am the one who is honored :) Another thought for foundationalism : maybe the cosmological laws do not satisfy the conditions for complete infinite explanations.
Hi Joshua !
Thanks a lot for your interest of the paper. I disagree with you here. In the examples you cite there are indeed laws governing the series that are left unexplained. But for one thing the foundationalist needs both a foundational item plus laws governing the series of items. For another thing, once you admit that infinity can do some explanatory work and need not be vicious (as I argue we should) you should be open to the idea that the laws governing the series are explained by meta-laws which are explained by meta-meta-laws etc, and that the infinite regress involved is not vicious (section 8).
Thanks, Alexandre! It's an honor to receive this comment from you.
If I may: on laws, I was thinking of a minimal notion of 'foundation' that could even be in terms of laws. However, you make a good point about the prospect of meta-laws in a non-vicious infinite regress, and I'll like to look into that more.
My present thought, for what it's worth, is that infinity can indeed do explanatory work without being vicious (just as you argue), *and* infinite chains (whether of laws or anything else) are explanatorily complete only if there is at least one item beyond the chain itself. In any case, I think there's more interesting work to be done here, and I'm grateful for your contribution on this area which invites me to continue to think more about it.
Thank you for your interest in my interest. I appreciate your work, and I really enjoyed this paper.
Thanks a lot. I am the one who is honored :) Another thought for foundationalism : maybe the cosmological laws do not satisfy the conditions for complete infinite explanations.