Grim Reaper paradox

Last updated

In philosophy, the Grim Reaper paradox is a paradox involving an infinite sequence of grim reapers, each tasked with killing a person if no reaper has already killed them. The paradox raises questions about the possibility of continuous time and the infinite past (temporal finitism). [1]

Contents

The paradox is inspired by J. A. Benardete's paradoxes from the 1964 book Infinity: An Essay in Metaphysics. In fact, various formulations of paradoxes involving beginningless sets, whose members perform a function only if no previous member performs it, are all labelled Benardete Paradoxes. [2] They are examples of supertasks.

The paradox

The paradox supposes there is an infinite sequence of Reapers, each assigned a time to kill a particular person. Each Reaper will only kill this person if no earlier Reaper has already killed them.

It is 12pm, the first Reaper is set to kill the person at 1pm. The second Reaper is set to kill them at 12:30pm, the third at 12:15pm, and so on.

As a consequence of these propositions, the person will certainly be killed by a Reaper before 1pm, however, no individual Reaper can kill them, as there is always an earlier Reaper who would do so first. Therefore, it is impossible that the person survive, but also impossible that any Reaper kills them. [3]

Resolutions and Implications

Discrete time

One solution to the paradox is supposing that time must be discrete rather than continuous. If so, an infinite number of Reapers cannot all have a separate time in which they will kill you, as there are only finitely many "moments" in each period of time. A possible issue with this solution is that the Reaper paradox can take different forms which do not rely upon continuous time. One such example appears in Benardete's book, in which a god throws up a wall if a man travels 1/2 mile, another god throws up a wall after 1/4 mile, another at 1/8 mile, ad infinitum. Discrete time would do nothing to prevent this paradox. [4] [5]

Causal finitism

Another solution is the idea of Causal finitism, which asserts that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. In other words, every causal chain must have a starting point. Thus, there cannot be an infinite number of Reapers whose actions depend on all previous Reapers. All Benardete paradoxes share this feature of an infinite causal chain, and so are all impossible.

Causal finitism could plausibly imply the discreteness of time, temporal finitism, infinitely large spatial regions, and continuously dense spatial regions, all of which are heavy metaphysical commitments. [6]

The Unsatisfiable Pair Diagnosis

A third potential solution to the Grim Reaper paradox has been suggested, known as the Unsatisfiable Pair Diagnosis (UPD). The UPD asserts that Benardete paradoxes (including the Grim Reaper paradox) are simply logically impossible, and no metaphysical thesis needs to be adopted. In The Form of the Benardete Dichotomy Nickolas Shackel observes that all Benardete Paradoxes involve two conditions:

  1. The linearly ordered set S has no first member
  2. For all x in S, E at x iff E nowhere before x

Shackel shows these statements to be formally inconsistent, they logically cannot both be true. The paradox assumes that some set of items could satisfy both statements, but no set can. [6] [7]

Relevance to theism

According to Pruss, the Grim Reaper paradox provides grounds for thinking that the past is finite, i.e. that there must be a first period of time. This would support the Kalam cosmological argument, backing up the premise that the universe began to exist. [1]

In 2018, Pruss provided a more thorough cosmological argument using causal finitism to motivate a necessary uncaused cause. The argument is as follows:

  1. Nothing has an infinite causal history. [Note 1]
  2. There are no causal loops.
  3. Something has a cause.
  4. Therefore, there is an uncaused cause.

Pruss then adds the following Causal Principle: 5. Every contingent item has a cause. [Note 2] From this the conclusion can be drawn that there is an uncaused cause which exists necessarily. Pruss states that it is still a major task to argue from a necessary first cause to theism.

Whilst The Kalam argument opposes sequences that go infinitely backwards in time, this argument denies all causally backwards-infinite sequences. [4]

Notes

  1. ↑ Due to causal finitism being assumed.
  2. ↑ A contingent item is one such that it is possible for it to exist or to not exist, as opposed to a necessary item.

Related Research Articles

In the philosophy of religion, a cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of God based upon observational and factual statements concerning the universe typically in the context of causation, change, contingency or finitude. In referring to reason and observation alone for its premises, and precluding revelation, this category of argument falls within the domain of natural theology. A cosmological argument can also sometimes be referred to as an argument from universal causation, an argument from first cause, the causal argument or the prime mover argument.

A paradox is a logically self-contradictory statement or a statement that runs contrary to one's expectation. It is a statement that, despite apparently valid reasoning from true or apparently true premises, leads to a seemingly self-contradictory or a logically unacceptable conclusion. A paradox usually involves contradictory-yet-interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time. They result in "persistent contradiction between interdependent elements" leading to a lasting "unity of opposites".

Zeno's paradoxes are a series of philosophical arguments presented by the ancient Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea, primarily known through the works of Plato, Aristotle, and later commentators like Simplicius of Cilicia. Zeno devised these paradoxes to support his teacher Parmenides's philosophy of monism, which posits that despite our sensory experiences, reality is singular and unchanging. The paradoxes famously challenge the notions of plurality, motion, space, and time by suggesting they lead to logical contradictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Zeno of Elea</span> Greek philosopher (c. 495 – c. 430 BC)

Zeno of Elea was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher from Elea, in Southern Italy. He was a student of Parmenides and one of the Eleatics. Zeno defended his instructor's belief in monism, the idea that only one single entity exists that makes up all of reality. He rejected the existence of space, time, and motion. To disprove these concepts, he developed a series of paradoxes to demonstrate why they are impossible. Though his original writings are lost, subsequent descriptions by Plato, Aristotle, Diogenes Laertius, and Simplicius of Cilicia have allowed study of his ideas.

Finitism is a philosophy of mathematics that accepts the existence only of finite mathematical objects. It is best understood in comparison to the mainstream philosophy of mathematics where infinite mathematical objects are accepted as existing.

In philosophy, a supertask is a countably infinite sequence of operations that occur sequentially within a finite interval of time. Supertasks are called hypertasks when the number of operations becomes uncountably infinite. A hypertask that includes one task for each ordinal number is called an ultratask. The term "supertask" was coined by the philosopher James F. Thomson, who devised Thomson's lamp. The term "hypertask" derives from Clark and Read in their paper of that name.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William Lane Craig</span> American philosopher and theologian (born 1949)

William Lane Craig is an American analytic philosopher, Christian apologist, author, and Wesleyan theologian who upholds the view of Molinism and neo-Apollinarianism. He is a professor of philosophy at Houston Christian University and at the Talbot School of Theology of Biola University.

A temporal paradox, time paradox, or time travel paradox, is a paradox, an apparent contradiction, or logical contradiction associated with the idea of time travel or other foreknowledge of the future. While the notion of time travel to the future complies with the current understanding of physics via relativistic time dilation, temporal paradoxes arise from circumstances involving hypothetical time travel to the past – and are often used to demonstrate its impossibility.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kalam cosmological argument</span> Philosophical argument for the existence of God

The Kalam cosmological argument is a modern formulation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. It is named after the Kalam from which many of its key ideas originated. Philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig was principally responsible for revitalizing these ideas for modern academic discourse through his book The Kalām Cosmological Argument (1979), as well as other publications.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Infinite regress</span> Philosophical problem

An infinite regress is an infinite series of entities governed by a recursive principle that determines how each entity in the series depends on or is produced by its predecessor.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Five Ways (Aquinas)</span> Aquinas arguments that there is a real God

The Quinque viæ are five logical arguments for the existence of God summarized by the 13th-century Catholic philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas in his book Summa Theologica. They are:

  1. the argument from "first mover";
  2. the argument from universal causation;
  3. the argument from contingency;
  4. the argument from degree;
  5. the argument from final cause or ends.
<span class="mw-page-title-main">1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ⋯</span> Infinite series summable to 1

In mathematics, the infinite series ⁠1/2⁠ + ⁠1/4⁠ + ⁠1/8⁠ + ⁠1/16⁠ + ··· is an elementary example of a geometric series that converges absolutely. The sum of the series is 1. In summation notation, this may be expressed as

Temporal finitism is the doctrine that time is finite in the past. The philosophy of Aristotle, expressed in such works as his Physics, held that although space was finite, with only void existing beyond the outermost sphere of the heavens, time was infinite. This caused problems for mediaeval Islamic, Jewish, and Christian philosophers who, primarily creationist, were unable to reconcile the Aristotelian conception of the eternal with the Genesis creation narrative.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Infinity</span> Mathematical concept

Infinity is something which is boundless, endless, or larger than any natural number. It is often denoted by the infinity symbol .

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eternity of the world</span> Philosophical question

The eternity of the world is the question of whether the world has a beginning in time or has existed for eternity. It was a concern for ancient philosophers as well as theologians and philosophers of the 13th century, and is also of interest to modern philosophers and scientists. The problem became a focus of a dispute in the 13th century, when some of the works of Aristotle, who believed in the eternity of the world, were rediscovered in the Latin West. This view conflicted with the view of the Catholic Church that the world had a beginning in time. The Aristotelian view was prohibited in the Condemnations of 1210–1277.

<i>The Kalām Cosmological Argument</i> 1979 book by William Lane Craig

The Kalām Cosmological Argument is a 1979 book by the philosopher William Lane Craig, in which the author offers a contemporary defense of the Kalām cosmological argument and argues for the existence of God, with an emphasis on the alleged metaphysical impossibility of an infinite regress of past events. First, Craig argues that the universe began to exist, using two philosophical and two scientific arguments. Second, Craig argues that whatever begins to exist has a cause that caused it to begin to exist. Finally, Craig argues that this cause is a personal creator who changelessly and independently willed the beginning of the universe.

Philosophy of motion is a branch of philosophy concerned with exploring questions on the existence and nature of motion. The central questions of this study concern the epistemology and ontology of motion, whether motion exists as we perceive it, what is it, and, if it exists, how does it occur. The philosophy of motion is important in the study of theories of change in natural systems and is closely connected to studies of space and time in philosophy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Why is there anything at all?</span> Metaphysical question

"Why is there anything at all?" or "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is a question about the reason for basic existence which has been raised or commented on by a range of philosophers and physicists, including Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Martin Heidegger, who called it "the fundamental question of metaphysics".

References

  1. 1 2 Koons, Robert C. (June 2014). "A New Kalam Argument: Revenge of the Grim Reaper". Noûs. 48 (2): 256–267. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0068.2012.00858.x.
  2. ↑ Schmid, J.C. (31 January 2024). "Benardete paradoxes, patchwork principles, and the infinite past". Synthese. 203 (2). doi:10.1007/s11229-023-04481-z.
  3. ↑ Chalmers, David (2002). Conceivability and Possibility. Clarendon Press. p. 154.
  4. 1 2 Pruss, Alexander (2018). Infinity, Causation, and Paradox. Oxford University Press. p. 55.
  5. ↑ Benardete, J. (1964). Infinity: An Essay in Metaphysics. Clarendon Press.
  6. 1 2 Schmid, J.C.; Malpass, Alex. "Benardete Paradoxes, Causal Finitism, and the Unsatisfiable Pair Diagnosis". Mind.
  7. ↑ Shackel, Nicholas (1 June 2005). "The Form of the Benardete Dichotomy". The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 56 (2): 397–417. doi:10.1093/bjps/axi121.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.