Circular logical universe versus Infinite Staircase universe

Question

Suppose we keep asking the question of "why" to reality's laws, seeking deeper and deeper explanations of them. Examples : "why do coupling constants take these values"? "why do the laws take these forms"? "why are there only three dimensions"?

As history has shown, sometimes we do get deeper explanations of the "whys". For example, today we can explain Coulomb's law using Quantum Field Theory. We can explain conservation using symmetries.

If we keep following the sequence of "whys", :

1. We reach a dead end. "why" is no longer defined after a step.

2. The logic becomes circular. The answer to some "why" is a previous step in the sequence.

3. We're led to an infinitely deep staircase of "whys".

Are all of these options logically possible for our universe? Is there any option that's considered preferable and why? Are there other options considered too?

EDIT I think the circular universe is the only possibility. This is because, both "infinite staircase" and "circularity" are logical structures. So, you need the ideas of logic to define reality. But you need reality to define logic. So, both "reality" and "logic" circularly feed on each other's existence.

Or, let's say there's a dead-end which explains everything else, even logic. But then, defining the dead-end requires the application of sequences, i.e. logic. So, the reasoning is circular.

What if we take logic itself as the dead-end? But logic has no meaning without reality. Logic is real. It exists. So it can't be the explanation of reality.

Answer 1

This is a known problem in epistemology, the problem of infinite regress

The regress problem (also known as Agrippa's Trilemma) is the problem of providing a complete logical foundation for human knowledge. The traditional way of supporting a rational argument is to appeal to other rational arguments, typically using chains of reason and rules of logic. A classic example that goes back to Aristotle is deducing that Socrates is mortal. We have a logical rule that says All humans are mortal and an assertion that Socrates is human and we deduce that Socrates is mortal. In this example how do we know that Socrates is human? Presumably we apply other rules such as: All born from human females are human. Which then leaves open the question how do we know that all born from humans are human? This is the regress problem: how can we eventually terminate a logical argument with some statements that do not require further justification but can still be considered rational and justified?

There are various approaches to address this, not necessarily mutually exclusive:

Foundationalism

Foundationalists respond to the regress problem by asserting that certain "foundations" or "basic beliefs" support other beliefs but do not themselves require justification from other beliefs. These beliefs might be justified because they are self-evident, infallible, or derive from reliable cognitive mechanisms. Perception, memory, and a priori intuition are often considered possible examples of basic beliefs.

Coherentism

Another response to the regress problem is coherentism, which is the rejection of the assumption that the regress proceeds according to a pattern of linear justification. To avoid the charge of circularity, coherentists hold that an individual belief is justified circularly by the way it fits together (coheres) with the rest of the belief system of which it is a part. This theory has the advantage of avoiding the infinite regress without claiming special, possibly arbitrary status for some particular class of beliefs. Yet, since a system can be coherent while also being wrong, coherentists face the difficulty of ensuring that the whole system corresponds to reality. Additionally, most logicians agree that any argument that is circular is, at best, only trivially valid. That is, to be illuminating, arguments must operate with information from multiple premises, not simply conclude by reiterating a premise.

Infinitism

An alternative resolution to the regress problem is known as "infinitism". Infinitists take the infinite series to be merely potential, in the sense that an individual may have indefinitely many reasons available to them, without having consciously thought through all of these reasons when the need arises. This position is motivated in part by the desire to avoid what is seen as the arbitrariness and circularity of its chief competitors, foundationalism and coherentism. The most prominent defense of infinitism has been given by Peter Klein.

And combinations of the above:

Foundherentism

An intermediate position, known as "foundherentism", is advanced by Susan Haack. Foundherentism is meant to unify foundationalism and coherentism. Haack explains the view by using a crossword puzzle as an analogy. Whereas, for example, infinitists regard the regress of reasons as taking the form of a single line that continues indefinitely, Haack has argued that chains of properly justified beliefs look more like a crossword puzzle, with various different lines mutually supporting each other.[70] Thus, Haack's view leaves room for both chains of beliefs that are "vertical" (terminating in foundational beliefs) and chains that are "horizontal" (deriving their justification from coherence with beliefs that are also members of foundationalist chains of belief).

Personally I am of the opinion that a combination of the solutions (eg Foundherentism) might be the most appropriate. It may be the case that a set of epistemic facts can not be further analysed and have to be taken as simply given, and another set of facts (or even the same set) refer to each other at various levels, producing a coherent whole, supporting each other.

Answer 2

Spinoza would have dismissed using logic to charactetise realities. For him, logic is contingent.

Aristotle also argued that an infinite regress was an absurdity and posited a First Mover which later Christian, Muslim & Jewish thinkers identified with God.

Buddhist philosophy is probably closest to what you are suggesting with your "circular universe". Essentially they say things are so arranged that everything depends upon everything so everything "arises" or comes into being together.

Coherentism, though not named as such, is actually pretty popular when one looks at foundational thinking of all kinds since the principles at stake generally have to be coherent with each other. I'd advise against calling it "circular" as that term is often used pejoratively ad in "circular thinking".

There are also physical speculations such as eternal inflation which posits an eternal universe. But these are very much speculations with little or no evidence to substantiate them. The most popular cosmological theory is still the Big Bang. Though it has nothing to say about the Bang itself.