 If Nolan and Cameron are right it at most gives us a pro tanto reason to reject a theory that leads to an ontological infinite regress. Just as we can justifiably accept the more complex hypothesis over the simpler one because the more complex hypothesis is more powerful (e.g.), so we might justifiably accept an ontological infinite regress because there is some virtue afforded by the theory that makes the cost worthwhile. Relatedly, Cameron (2008, 13–14) argues that this would not give us any reason to think that ontological infinite regresses are metaphysically impossible, at most it gives us a reason to think they are not actual, which limits the positions that such regress arguments can be used to argue for.