Good - what should be — Philosophim

I'm afraid I have to disagree. Good and evil are psychological states of affairs and are features of reality.

Morality - a method of evaluating what is good — Philosophim

Morality is about releasing what is a right action, good or evil, in a situation.

Between any two distinct real numbers, there is always another one strictly between them. — fishfry

That is not correct: Consider two numbers on the real number such as $a$ and $b$. Let's define the mean as $c_1=\frac{a+b}{2}$. We can determine the next mean as either $c_2=\frac{a+c_1}{2}$ or $c_2=\frac{c_1+b}{2}$ in which in the first case we approach to $a$ from the right and in the second case we approach to $b$ from the left. Let's work with the first approach: $c_2=\frac{a+c_1}{2}$. The next mean can then be determined by $c_3=\frac{a+c_2}{2}$. We can write $c_{i+1}=\frac{a+c_i}{2}$. The distance between $c_{i+1}$ and $a$ is $d_{i+1}=c_{i+1}-a=c_i-c_{i+1}=\frac{(2^i-1)*a+b}{2^i}-\frac{(2^{i+1}-1)*a+b}{2^{i+1}}$. Therefore, we have $d_{i+1}=\frac{2*((2^i-1)*a+b)-((2^{i+1}-1)*a+b)}{2^{i+1}}=\frac{b-a}{2^{i+1}}$. So, $d_{\text{Aleph}_1}=\frac{b-a}{2^{\text{Aleph}_1}}\lt\frac{\text{Aleph}_1}{2^{\text{Aleph}_1}}=0$. Therefore, your statement does not follow.

No. What is defended and discussed here is an analytic of religion, not religion as it is taken up in regular affairs. Read the OP. — Constance

Ok, my apology. I read your OP a couple of times and now I know what you are arguing about. To me, the essence of religion is not about ethics at all but about spiritual and mystical experiences. Although there are religions with a set of commands, what we ought to do and what we ought not to do, but to my understanding there is no religion that provides reasons why an act, good or evil, is right or wrong. Therefore, religion is not about ethics.

God is a term that issues from the basic religious situation. It belongs to a basket of terms that create issues rather than resolve them. Say God is the greatest possible being, then I will give a hundred ways to entangle this into an entirely contrived issue generating concept. Wittgenstein was right: leave such things alone for, putting is simply, lack of grounding in the world. In other words, the world shows itself to us and our job in philosophy is to say what is there at the most basic level. — Constance

I don't think that philosophy can resolve the problems regarding spirituality hence religion. You either have spiritual experience or not. You cannot tell whether a spiritual experience is an illusion created by the brain or it is real (by real I mean that there are spiritual agents in charge of causing the experience).

But you don't give the idea its due: take someone's masochism regards beatings as somehow delightful. The pain of the beatings is no longer, therefore bad, or another way to go would be to say that what is bad in the pain is entangled with something that makes if good (a fetish's very definition) and familiarity makes for a settled matter, psychologically. On this point I don't care about the variability of the way we experience the world. All that matters is the value in play when value is entangled (it almost always is). It can be clear as a bell, as when the flame is put beneath the palm of my hand--hard to fetishize this one. Not impossible, but then...well, I hard to even imagine. I can imagine Thích Quảng Đức did; he was the Buddhist monk who set himself ablaze in protest. But this is a different matter as he had trained himself to ignore the pain, not enjoy it. But the source of enjoyment is just not at issue. What is at issue is the nature of pain when one is feeling pain. Just that. You have a fetish such that burns and beatings are a good time, then I do not classify your beatings as painful, but delightful. — Constance

Glad to see that you agree that the pain is not bad for all agents.

I am of the school that says if something hasn't been through the analytic grinder, then it is not worthy of belief. — Constance

Well, that is quite the opposite of what you stated regarding religion. To you: "But religions are about a dogmatic authority, and so the analytic of good and bad has no place.".

I no more take religion in any popular sense seriously at all. Such a thing is no longer a a living possibility. — Constance

Do you believe in God? If yes which kind of God It is?

If a masochist likes X, then X isn't pain to the masochist. I take this as both analytically true as well as experientially. — Constance

I am a masochist myself so I can tell you that is the pain that I like.

:up: :100:

But religions are about a dogmatic authority, and so the analytic of good and bad has no place. As for a description, this is what observation does. So what is there to observe? Just the arbitrary command (which may be a good idea or not. The point is that the determination about its goodness or badness is not based on justification and merit). — Constance

What is your religion and why did you choose it?

Pain is apodictically "bad". — Constance

Not to a masochist.

Well, it tries to. — Constance

To my knowledge, no religion describes good, evil, right, and wrong. It just gives a set of commands: what we ought to do (considered as good) and what we ought not to do (considered as evil).

But the point here is that when we are trying to understand something in the world, we look to a description of how that thing appears. So we "observe" religion much as we would, say, the law, or geology or anything we want to understand. I am saying religion is what we encounter when ethics meets metaphysics. So what is ethics and what is metaphysics? In ethics, there turns up something apodictic, which is really not the way philosophers prefer to think about ethics, because apodicticity is irreducible. I.e., nothing to talk about.
So what to do now? What if ethics were apodictic? I am claiming it is. — Constance

There are two problems here even if we accept that ethics is apodictic: (1) Which religion is the correct one? and (2) What is the reason for religion being the only reliable source when it comes to ethics?

(1) is important since there are conflicts in many religions and even there are conflicts within a single religion. (2) What if someone comes up with an apodictic idea regarding ethics such as each human has all rights when it comes to his or her life but she or he does not have any right when it comes to the life of others unless both individuals agree on terms and conditions?

Religion IS metaethics... — Constance

I cannot see how that could be true. Religion does not tell us what good, evil, right, and wrong are. Does it?

Thanks for the elaboration.

Thank you very much for your reply and fruitful input.

Let's start the discussion by defining the different gaps. Given a set of points, points of real number for example, I define G1 as an interval between two distinct points. I define G2 as an interval between two immediate points with no point between them (what I call an abrupt change in OP). I am interested in understanding whether there are gaps of type G2 in the set of real number given the definition of the set of real number which can be found here. The set of real can be defined as a set of numbers each number has an integer and decimal fraction. The decimal fraction contains an infinite number of digits, to be precise Aleph_0, where Aleph_0 is the cardinality of the natural number. To show that G2 exists in the set of real number I simply construct an infinitesimal_1 as follows: infinitesimal_1 = 0.0...01 where by "..." I mean an infinite number of zero to be more precise by the infinity in here I mean Aleph_0. I can show the second smallest number is 0.0...02 with no number between. Think of a number between, 0.0...011. This number can be divided into two parts 0.0...01 and 0.0...001. 0.0...001 however is 0.0...01 given the property of Aleph_0 in which Aleph_0+1=Aleph_0 therefore 0.0...011 is equal to 0.0...02.

I am sure that mathematicians define things in a more rigorous way when it comes to infinitesimal. I am interested in whether you can show that there is an infinitesimal in the set of real number given your definition.

Cantor's generalized theorem says that there is no onto mapping possible between a set and its power set, even when such set has an infinite cardinality. — Tarskian

I don't understand how one can disprove Laplace's Demon using Cantor's theorem. Do you mind elaborating?

What do you mean by 'a gap'? If you mean that the two distinct points are not the same point, then yes, by definition. There's a gap between 4 and 13. — noAxioms

By a gap, I mean an interval.

Without a definition of a gap, P1 is ambiguous. It states that either G or ~G, which is tautologically true, making P1 empty. The word 'distinct' is not part of P1. — noAxioms

It shouldn't be.

Show it then. What about the number that is halfway between this smallest positive number and zero? You've shown that it doesn't exist? — noAxioms

Well, I construct the infinitesimal in this way: 0.0...01. By "..." I mean Aleph_0 zero. The next number is then 0.0...02 therefore there is a gap, 0.0...01 between these two numbers. One could say how about 0.0...011? It can be shown that 0.0...011 is 0.0...02 by simple math. 0.0...011=0.0...01+0.0....01. By "...." (where dots appears four times) I mean Aleph_0+1. But Aleph_0+1=Aleph_0 therefore 0.0...01+0.0....01=0.0...01+0.0...01=0.0...02.

Define it then, without making classical assumptions (like a particle having a location, or some counterfactual property. — noAxioms

This is off-topic but I give it a try. Consider a hydrogen atom for example. R is the center of mass position operator of the atom that is related to the position operator of the nucleus (r_n) and the position operator of the electron (r_e). The relation is R=(m_n*r_n+m_e*r_e)/(m_n+m_e) where m_n and m_e are the mass of the nucleus and electron respectively. The center of mass therefore can be calculated as <Psi(R,t)|R|Psi(R,t)>.

Also, why do you think that death is impossible? — boundless

I didn't say that death is impossible.

C2 doesn't follow at all. In the real numbers, there being a gap between 4 and 13 does not imply that the real numbers (or even the rationals) is not a continuum. — noAxioms

C1 states that there is a gap between all pairs of distinct points of the continuum.

You need to demonstrate that there is nothing between some pairs of points that are not the same point. Then you've falsified the continuum premise. — noAxioms

Are you challenging (P1)? If yes, I already illustrated that given the definition of the real number one can construct the smallest number or the smallest interval so-called infinitesimal.

Only in classical physics, and our universe isn't classical. But I accept your refutation of the rebuttal to the OP. Do you accept my rebuttal? — noAxioms

You can define it in quantum physics as well. Of course, you cannot measure it.

It exists in your mind, your imagination, but not in the physical world. I can imagine a point. I can also imagine a line, which is continuous.

I don't think we're getting anywhere. I'm going to leave it at that. — T Clark

As you wish.

Hypostatisation. Another case of folk mistaking a way of talking for a thing. — Banno

Ok!

1 – This means nothing. — Lionino

It means something. It means given the laws of nature you can predict the behavior of entities. The laws of nature cannot however be explained. That is what I mean by at the fundamental level.

2 – I said physics is concerned with 'how', not whether we know how this or that particular fact. — Lionino

Ok, so you are correcting yourself.

3 – You then proceed to give a physical — though incorrect — explanation of how light propagates, self-refuting your claim that physics isn't concerned with how. — Lionino

I mean an explanation in terms of the laws of nature. By this, I mean given the laws of nature you can explain things but you cannot explain the laws of nature.

4 – This phrase "temporal change" isn't used in physics. — Lionino

It is used. Change can be temporal or spatial. By temporal I mean the strength of the electromagnetic field for example changes at a point in space by time.

5 – That is electromagnetic induction as given by B-S's Law and L's Law. Nothing to do with propagation of the electromagnetic wave. — Lionino

You can produce electric field if magnetic field changes by time. You can also produce magnetic field in absence of electrical current if electric field changes by time. That is how light propagate in space.

6 – Cut the nonsensical "fundamental" out of the phrase and it is evidently wrong. Even with the "fundamental" there, one could argue it is wrong too, resorting to relativistic explanations. — Lionino

By fundamental I mean we don't know how the laws of nature work.

lol — Lionino

So you know!?

A point does not exist in the everyday world. It is an abstraction, and idealization - imaginary. It has no size. It 's zero dimensional. It does not take up space. A center of gravity is a point and, as such, is also an abstraction, imaginary. — T Clark

Are you claiming that something which is an abstraction cannot exist?

A point is an abstract mathematical entity which doesn't correspond with any phenomenon in the world of our everyday existence. — T Clark

The center of mass of your body is a point. The center of mass of your computer is a point as well. There is a distance between these two points. The question is whether this distance is discrete or continuous.

The same is true of a continuum. — T Clark

Well, that is the subject of discussion.

You are talking out of your butt. — Lionino

That is a typical response from a person who either does not understand an argument or does not have any argument to add something fruitful to a discussion. Do you know how a temporal change in the electric field produces the magnetic field?

The sciences are concerned with how. How does light propagate, how are chemical bonds formed, how do worms reproduce. — Lionino

Physics is not concerned with how at the fundamental level. We know how light propagates. A temporal change in the electric field produces the magnetic field and vice versa. That is how we explain the propagation of light. Yet we don't know at the fundamental level how a temporal change in the electric field produces the magnetic field and vice versa.

To be fair, I should have added that boredom would not the only one reason that after a certain point such an endless life would be unbereable. But in any case, I'm not sure how you have not conceded my point, i.e. that such a 'relative perfection' is undesiderable. We seem to agree that an endless life with only finite goods becomes after a certain point unbereable. — boundless

Perhaps good is not finite. If it is and life is eternal then we are in trouble.

Yet, you seem to say that a state of 'relative perfection' is 'better than nothing'. How can an 'endless unbeareable life' be better than 'nothing'? — boundless

Well, either the state of relative perfection or the state of suffering. Which one do you pick? By nothing I didn't mean permanent death.

But if there is nothing that guarantees that I may not fall from such a state of 'relative peace' (assuming that it is a positive state), then such a state is not possible (for instance, in traditional theism, God is the foundation of the stability of the beatitude of the blessed). — boundless

A state of relative peace is possible.

Also, if it is too similar to the present life - after all, if it is seen as a perpetual struggle, the comparison is IMO apt - I am not sure how it is better than nothing. If I really think that this life will last forever, well I think it will be at a certain point unbereable (due to boredom... after all, finite goods can give finite happiness). — boundless

Correct. Life becomes boring if it is eternal.

An enlightened society without nation state politics but rather one world government, something like USA but on a global level would reduce wars or wars within itself because the interests of the whole would align with the interests of the individual we could eliminate wars entirely. — kindred

Very correct!

A utopia could in theory be isolated from the rest of the world where a sufficiently advanced civilisation has no need to impose its ideals on other nation states and sufficiently strong enough to be unbothered by wars waged on it by other nation states or actors. In a society where the basic human needs are easily met with ease would be the starting point of such a civilisation. — kindred

Very correct!

If this obstacle was overcome by everyone in that society having the same vision of what a utopia should be then then there would be no need for authoritarianism, in fact it would be the opposite of what utopia entails. Perhaps in such a society the role of government would be minimal although laws would still exist albeit they would be irrelevant as this society would compromise of enlightened citizens who know right from wrong without laws telling them so. — kindred

Very correct!

A society without pain, suffering, disease, wars, poverty or even death. — kindred

Pain and pleasure come together so we cannot have one without another one. They are related to our physiology and without them, we don't learn anything. Suffering is a broad concept. We can get rid of a part but not all of it. We can get rid of most of the diseases in the far distant future. Wars and poverty are our faults. We can avoid them when we are wise enough. Death is unavoidable though.

The angle of my question is not aimed at the human obstacles of achieving such a civilisation or whether it’s technologically possible but rather whether it’s philosophically possible. — kindred

Technological advancement without ethical advancement leads to disasters.

What would Joy feel like without pain, what would riches mean without poverty or what would health mean without sickness. What would life mean without death? — kindred

Joy and sadness come together. Richness and poverty are our fault.

For this reason I don’t think Utopia is possible as life is about opposites ying and yang otherwise it would just be all yang and without ying. All black or all white. But what do you think ? — kindred

What do you mean with Utopia?

Ok, fine. But the 'relative perfection' you mentioned earlier didn't sound as something desirable, something to seek etc if it is a constant struggle. — boundless

Well, the state of relative peace is better than nothing. The better you understand life it becomes easier to achieve relative peace.

Well, in any case, your conception of 'relative peace' cannot be a real 'peace'. If we have to continue to struggle to maintain it, it inevitably involves suffering. — boundless

Well, I mentioned that if perfection is boundless then we cannot possibly reach the state of absolute peace but relative one. There is nothing we can do about it.

Well, at least hypothetically/logically I think that it isn't true. I can imagine an interrupted continuum of neutral and/or positive experiences. At least I do not see a logical impossibility here. — boundless

Well, I can imagine a state of peace and harmony (what I call perfection) as well but our current state of affairs is not like this.

Why should humans care how much BALANCE of suffering occurs in the universe, when it is him/her that is being subjected to suffering in various amounts, perhaps on the more negative end of the equation? — schopenhauer1

We are curious creatures so we are wondering why life looks like this. I don't think that there is any sort of suffering that leads to a completely negative end whether you believe in a God or not who is in charge of enforcing Karma. For a moment think that there is no God. Think of a situation in which a child is born with cancer. Both the child and relatives suffer in such a situation. What is the human response to such a situation? We try to find a medication to cure the child. So our overall state of life improves with time as we face challenges and sufferings.

In other words, for humans, why should it matter how the "overall picture" looks from their point of view, if they are the ones suffering!? — schopenhauer1

The same answer as above.

But are specifically discussing the "Abrahamic" God from the Biblical narratives here or is this just MoK's own version of things? — schopenhauer1

We can discuss other sorts of Gods as well. I am open to discussion. I however have problems with Abrahamic God.

Ok. But if this peace is 'relative', as you say, what guarantee we have that we do not lose it? — boundless

There is no guarantee that we don't lose it. It is a constant challenge to stay in a state of relative peace.

Also, is this scenario desirable because suffering is less than pleasure in this 'relative peace'? — boundless

I don't equate a state of peace with a state in which we experience more pleasure than suffering. A state of peace is neutral. By neutral I mean you neither suffer nor have pleasure.

All I see here is an assertion that change always entails 'suffering'. For instance, the reason why I believe that transience entails suffering in this world is that there isn't an unbroken continuum of pleasurable/positive experiences. Sooner or later, the 'continuum' of positive experiences will have an end, due to illnesses, other kinds of suffering, and death. — boundless

Yes, we cannot avoid suffering if perfection is boundless.

On the other hand, if there were only positive experiences and the succession of these experiences would continue forever, I would say that there would be no suffering in this case. This is to say that I don't think that logically change necessary entails suffering. — boundless

Correct. But you ask whether we can make any progress without suffering. I mentioned that there could be progress without suffering if there is no experience. I then mentioned that change is not possible without experience. Progress is a change. Therefore progress is not possible without experience. I also don't think that you can make progress without suffering. That is how life is!

You just contradicted yourself. It doesn't matter what the outcome is. — schopenhauer1

It matters.

So here we have the following:
1) A perfect god wouldn't have needs
2) A good god wouldn't want suffering — schopenhauer1

Well, God could be both good and evil. Such a God however is Just. By Just I mean God delivers good or evil in a proper amount depending on the situation. So the existence of suffering in the universe is not a problem for such a God as far as suffering leads to a positive result. That is correct that a good God wouldn't want to see suffering but even such a God might want to create a universe full of suffering if the outcome of suffering is positive and good.

Now you can contest this, but then that's my point, what is a perfect and good god? Generally, a perfection doesn't lack anything. — schopenhauer1

I agree that a perfect God does not lack anything and creation does not add anything to a perfect God but that does not mean that such a God wouldn't want to create a universe if the outcome of creation is positive.

Now if I was to be real abstract about it, I would again point to the idea of a multiverse whereby everything that exists is god, and thus, at the least, one of the universes has to have the shit end of the stick with suffering. If not one, then vastly infinite amounts perhaps, and we are but one of them. — schopenhauer1

I agree that the whole is boundless and there could be any agents one can imagine.

All we have to admit then is that THIS god you describe, the one Just-Centric god that rules this universe is not perfect. Our disagreement comes from our definitions of perfection. For me, a perfect being has no needs, is not dissatisfied with its own supernal nature. Thus, whatever deity it is that devises a plan whereby they play out acts of goodness and badness, and acts of godliness and sins and acts of "Holy Hosannas!" and repentance to appease the God. A god that has a plan for a universe whereby people must act in a way to bring about a future World to Come apocalypse, where he then reveals himself in his full glory after an absence.. Whatever else it is, that is not perfection in that it is a designer of a game that it is playing. He creates the players, he creates the systems, and wants to see the players play ball in the system and see how it turns out.

That is a very human-like god. That makes sense since humans created it. A god that needs humans (to play his game), is a god that NEEDS things. — schopenhauer1

I understand that a perfect God does not need anything but that does not mean such a God would not want to create a universe with positive outcomes. The creation of the universe does not add anything to a perfect God but it adds to existence if existence is positive. So I don't understand why a perfect God would not want to create.

This all makes no sense, so I'll leave you to your own musings unless you want to explain your use of "against wisdom" here. — schopenhauer1

First of all, I have to say that I don't have an argument for a God who is the creator of everything from nothing at the beginning of time. All I am saying is that if there is a God who is perfect, whether perfection is bounded or boundless, in all his attributes would not create any lesser agent than God who is subject to suffering since the suffering cannot be justified. This however requires the existence of a God who can create another God and It is Just. If these two conditions (a God who can create another God and a God who is Just) do not meet then we are dealing with a variety of Gods so creations also look different depending on the type of God. For example, we can have a God who is Just but cannot create another God. So, such a God can create a universe in which agents within are subject to suffering. Such a God however only creates a universe if suffering can be justified. This however requires that suffering is fruitful and something positive would come out of it. There could be a God who is Evil or Good too. A God could also be malicious. What could we do with a malicious God? Nothing but accepting our fates and suffering eternally.

Also, why would a perfect deity care about creating anything? — schopenhauer1

Well, that depends on the definition of God (the types of Gods as it was discussed in the last comment) that we have to agree on. The act of creation is positive if something positive comes out of suffering for example.

The only way to get around this is to define God as everything that ever exists in every possible mode that can ever happen. It is akin to the Many Worlds hypothesis in physics. We are playing out one mode of existence out of an infinite array. In this world, we have suffering. In this world, there might even be a hidden deity that enjoys creating beings that have to overcome obstacles and realize he exists, but this would just be one world out of many worlds, as clearly, a perfect God would have no need for creation, so perhaps there is a world where there is a perfect god and a creation set of nothing. So if a perfect god exists, it is not THIS world, but it MIGHT BE some world of all the infinite sets of worlds, perhaps even most of them. Maybe we are of the lesser variety of God's infinite set, that has deities with imperfect NEEDS to see creation play out in a "right action leads to rewards and wrong action leads to punishment" (or its cousin, the Eastern version of Karmic causal effect for that matter). In that sense, we would be living out in a sort of Spinozist world of infinite modes, sort of. Our world would be of "the lower-than-average suffering and deity that has needs that need to be met" variety. — schopenhauer1

I think that the whole, what you call God, is boundless and I have an argument for it (you can find the argument in my threads). So, any sort of agent that can be imagined exists if the whole is filled with stuff. Therefore, I agree with this part of your statement that there could be spiritual agents that for example in charge of enforcing Karma.

Ok, I see. But if suffering is literally endless, how can such an endless effort be something desirable to us? — boundless

If suffering is endless then we cannot reach the state of absolute peace but we can reach the state of relative peace.

For instance, IIRC, Kant's view was that the progress to ethical perfection is endless but I don't think that after a certain point, it involves suffering. — boundless

If suffering is endless then we cannot achieve a state without suffering.

This leads to me to another question. Do you think that any kind of 'dynamic progress', so to speak, necessarily involves suffering? If so, why? — boundless

Well, it depends if experience is necessary for any sort of dynamic progress. If progress can be achieved without experience then there would be no suffering otherwise there would be. Change to me however is not possible without experience. The argument for this is very long and technical. If you buy this argument for the sake of discussion then it follows that suffering is involved in any sort of dynamic progress.

But if such a goal is utterly unachievable and suffering cannot be eliminated, why we should seek it? — boundless

We can reach a state of relative peace even if suffering is boundless.

Another version of why this is incorrect:

A pencil exists at the same instance in time, all along it's length. But that's a continuum, not a set of discreet points appearing at a particular point in time. — AmadeusD

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Not correct. — Relativist

It is correct given the definition of gap. The events lay on the same point if there is no gap between them.

There is no gap on the real number line. — Relativist

If that was true then Aleph_1 was the largest cardinal number.

What is your definition of change?