@180 Proof

The map-territory idea is vital to our discussion. Gnomon, your interest lies in an idealized map (pure abtraction) and as 180 Proof points out this results in a mappa that does not describe reality.

@Jack Cummins

Can you explain why, or how, the stress arises? In engineering, stress is produced when there are two or more forces working against each other. The left hand pushes against the bow as the right hand pulls back the bowstring.

So on the face of it, I would expect that stress would be produced when two people are wanting different things - Smith wants companionship, but Cummins wants to be alone, maybe. But you say that Smith alone is more stressed?

I'm wondering if other people function as a distraction rather than a relaxant, from a stress that is always there in the background? — unenlightened

Humans are social creatures and there's an instinctive desire for company. I believe there are psychological studies that show those who live solitary lives have shorter lifespans and suffer more illnesses. As Jack Cummins alluded to, Maslow's hierarchy of needs is on target (social life is a sine qua non).

Schrödinger's cat (call PETA asap) is both dead and alive (this is impossible in one world)
— Agent Smith
Shouldn’t the cat simply be dead or alive then? What’s the difference when the box hasn’t yet been opened, other than the epistemological one where the lab guy doesn’t know the state of the cat. That would be a classic state like a coin tossed and caught, but not yet revealed. What makes the cat different if the world has already split? — noAxioms

I thought that superposition is a fact and not just a hole in our knowledge. In other words the coin is heads and tails and not that it's either heads or tails, only we don't know which.

Each of those people are ends in themselves. — PhilosophyRunner

People are ends in themselves. — I. Kant

Being alone is stressful, as I said.

Looks like a quickly-written list mon ami. Were you in a hurry to get somewhere?

More money for more people equates to more riches for the rich. Those with the most wealth will be poorer until taxes do their trick. Affluent people are impatient and greedy, yet their issue runs remotely less shallow. Foresight is their crux. Forbearing profits them better, they determined. To exceed what is customarily generous must formulate the unknown. Fear is ample for people in command with doubts. Or, they do know what abundant generosity brings them. Mayhap their biggest fear. — Bug Biro

Superb analysis. :up:

:ok:

The guy does have a radio-voice. Pretty good. — BC

Indeed!

You could say it like that — punos

:up:

I put this question to NoAxioms but he wasn't sure how to respond, so I'll try again, as you seem to have insight into this area.

On face value, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics seems the opposite of parsimomious. It seems to say that the world or universe splits or divides at the point of measurement or observation of a sub-atomic particle. So the question is, what problem does the interpretation of quantum physics try to solve? What would its proponents such as Wallace and Deutsch be obliged to acknowledge (apart from the obvious fact that they were mistaken), if by some means it was shown to be untenable? — Wayfarer

To resolve the contradiction mon ami, that's one way to look at it. Schrödinger's cat (call PETA asap) is both dead and alive (this is impossible in one world) and so the world splits, one in which the cat's alive and one in which it's dead.

The structure of zero is not empty, it only appears that way because it contains all opposites within it such as (-1 + 1) = (0) = (-1 + 1) — punos

:up:

Infinity can not be actualized. — punos

Pseudoinfinity? Boundless but finite?

No. But feel free to say something relevant. — Mikie

:sweat:

There are enough-plenty dollars in homeless folks. It's just that no one has seen 'em ... yet!

:lol:

May I share some more of my mathematically profound intuitions ... again? :smile:

Casuistry — 180 Proof

:ok:

My goal was good, but not sure about my subgoal... — PhilosophyRunner

C'est la vie, eh @schopenhauer1?

Non.But we are going around the mulberry bush, so best leave it there I think. — PhilosophyRunner

:up: Good exchange. What was your goal, if I may ask, mon ami?

Ah I see your problem.

Well I gave a number of examples. John want to save his son. This is an end, do you agree?

To do so he kills 100, this is the means to his end, do you agree? Each time he kills someone, he says "for my son!" — PhilosophyRunner

Then we're off-topic, oui?

You've lost the plot, amigo. "Good / bad" – ends don't justify means.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/777050 — 180 Proof

:up: I know mon ami, it's just that in the real world, an omelette in the pan means a (hopefully) few, broken eggs.

Your list suggests the goal carries more weight that the sub goal. my point is why? Most of your replies have been to repeat the list which doesn't help!

So is your list based on utility? If not what? Why are bad bad subgoals not as bad as bad goals? — PhilosophyRunner

The notion of ends justifying the means is incoherent (to me) without the end having more weightage than the means.

Well, you seem to think so. Save your son.

The point you're trying to make has utility monster undertones.

Please save your daughter.

It doesn't seem to me that we disagree much. I see our sense of self as something personal. Different people will experience it differently. Different experiences are not right or wrong. — T Clark

:up: Exactly. The subjective nature of our experience of our selves precludes any attempt to analyze it objectively. I feel most studies on Being end in tautologies like Being is existence. What sayest thou?

The ends justify the means, that's what we're discussing here mon ami.

In Mark and John's example, who is better? — PhilosophyRunner

The question doesn't make sense.

1. Good means, good ends
2. Bad means, good ends
3. Good means, bad ends
4. Bad means, bad ends

What "list"? — 180 Proof

In order of preference

1. Good means, good ends
2. Bad means, good ends
3. Good means, bad ends
4. Bad means, bad ends — Agent Smith

I could easily respond to that by saying ...

2. Kill 100 (bad subgoal) to save 500 (good goal)
3. Saving 100 (good subgoal) to kill 500 (bad goal)

... and asking which is better?

Solve et Coagula — punos

:chin:

I prefer hyperbolae — kudos

:chin:

That formulation doesn't make sense to me.

@PhilosophyRunner

Quid accidit?

Could you elaborate on that? — PhilosophyRunner

The notion of ends and means depends on intent as mediated by causality. Your end: save a 100 people. Your means: kill 1 person. The goal (save 100) is achieved through a subgoal (kill 1).

Yes, but that was not my question.

Rather I was arguing that killing Mr X is an end in itself. And the saving 100 people are also ends. they are all ends - even the means are ends. — PhilosophyRunner

Yup, it depend then on intent.

It must be discussed. Your post uses Being to describe this universe, so Being is already there acting as it would anywhere else. — kudos

Being is existence. Circular, no?

It doesn't answer my question - are the means also ends in themselves? It seems to me means are often (perhaps even always, but I'm not sure) ends themselves. — PhilosophyRunner

Well, you might wanna kill a certain Mr. X and it so happens that doing so saves a 100 people.

I don't accept "ends justify means" arguments in ethics. Means and ends must be adjusted to one another so that the latter is not undermined or invalidated by the former while the former is calibrated to enact the latter. A version of reflective equilibrium. — 180 Proof

The list speaks for itself.

Perhaps... It was an old English advertising slogan for Hienz baked beans... It seemed apropos. — Tom Storm

Quite alright, ol' chap! Is anything amiss with my ordered list though?