"Stoicism is predominantly a philosophy of personal ethics informed by its system of logic and its views on the natural world. According to its teachings, as social beings, the path to happiness for humans is found in accepting the moment as it presents itself, by not allowing oneself to be controlled by the desire for pleasure or fear of pain, by using one's mind to understand the world and to do one's part in nature's plan, and by working together and treating others fairly and justly."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism

1. 'accepting the moment as it presents itself'
2. 'by not allowing oneself to be controlled by the desire for pleasure or fear of pain'
3. 'by using one's mind to understand the world and to do one's part in nature's plan'
4. 'By working together and treating others fairly and justly'

All sound advise that I follow excepting [2]: avoidance of pain and experience of pleasure, when pain and pleasure are defined in the widest possible sense (physical, emotional, spiritual etc...), it is our primary objective and our lives should be structured around that.

that’s if you can prove that something cannot exist eternally, but to do that, you would have to prove that existence came into being out of non-existence, or rather, the non-potential for existence to be. — TheGreatArcanum

- Something cannot exist eternally in time because it would have no temporal start
- Eternal existence outside of time is however possible.

This argument from Aquinas sums it up:

1. Can’t get something from nothing
2. So something must have existed ‘always’.
3. IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something has permanent existence.
4. It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (an infinite regress; it would have no start so could not be), so the ‘something’ must be a timeless first cause.

meditate on it a little more; what both exists, yet isn’t tangible, and both contains itself and does not contain itself simultaneously? — TheGreatArcanum

No idea.

Actually the set of all objectively real sets would have to be defined to exclude its own power set else we have problems.

I'm not sure the set of all sets can be defined properly without various restrictions...

agreed, there is no actualized infinite. meaning that there is no set of all sets, or there is. — TheGreatArcanum

It has to be one or the other:

- I think the set of all sets exists only in our minds along with all the other infinite sets.

- I think the set of all objectively real sets may exist, but it is not infinite.

From the other thread:

'on paper, yes, but it may be the case that something existent can both contain itself and not contain itself at the same time, in which case, it would not matter if it’s a contradiction or not.'

I don't think thats topologically possible.

if the set of all sets in nature has ontological value, and both contains itself and does not contain itself at the same time and in the same respect, there is no contradiction. — TheGreatArcanum

How can a set contain contain itself and not contain itself at the same time? Surely that is a logical contradiction?

The set of sets only exists in our imaginations. All infinite sets are purely things of the imagination. They are a mental approximation of the very large that can never be realised:

1. Creating anything infinity large is impossible; not enough time / would never finish
2. Creating anything infinity small is impossible; no matter how small it is made, it could still be smaller
3. Only in our minds can things continue ‘forever’; in reality this would be akin to magic

...is therefore identical to the set of all sets. — TheGreatArcanum

In set theory it is claimed that the set of all sets does not exist. 'Proof’:

1. Let S be the set of all sets, then |S| < |2^S| but 2^S is a subset of S, because every set in 2^S is in S.
2. Therefore |S|>=|2^S|
3. A contradiction, therefore the set of all sets does not exist.

(using || to indicate cardinality above)

How do you respond to this proof?

Show how this set's winning is more unlikely than all other possibilities. Do so without assuming life is a design objective. — Relativist

Not sure I understand the question. All possibilities in the lottery are a billion to one - all equally unlikely. So losing is almost 100% certain. So winning is clearly more unlikely than all other possibilities.

If you see a face in the sand on the beach, do you assume it is a random arrangement of molecules or that someone drew it?

Consider a lottery on which a billion people have exactly one ticket. A ticket is drawn, and there is a winner. His chances of winning were 1 in a billion, and yet he won. Does his low probability of winning imply the lottery was rigged? — Relativist

We know lotteries tend not to be rigged. We do not know if universes are 'rigged'. It could be that universes are not rigged and we just got lucky, but thats very unlikely.

The "Fine Tuning Argument" leads one to believe there is some "coincidence" that demands explanation, but a coincidence entails two or more facts that unexpectedly "coincide." A set of constant values does not constitute a coincidence, nor does a consequence of the values being what they are: If A causes B, B causes C, and C causes D - it is not an unexplained coincidence that A is "D permitting." — Relativist

Why does 'a set of constant values does not constitute a coincidence'? Over 20 independent physical constants had to be the way they are for life to be possible. Surely the mother of all coincidence.

Richard Feynman once said, “You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight... I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!” — Relativist

The license plate ARW 357 has nothing special about it Feynman's analogy falls wide of the mark. Our universe does however have many things special about it, starting with stars (energy sources for life) and planets (living surfaces for life). Even just the formation of these is an incredible coincident. Even the formation of atoms is a minor miracle.

Any particular set of values for the "fundamental constants" is low probability. As Feyman implies: low probability things happen all the time. — Relativist

Yes but we have one instance of the universe being created to discuss. Did it come about by:

1. A billion in one shot coming off and we just happen to get lucky
2. The universe was fine tuned for life

The first is incredibly unlikely so we can discount it in comparison to the much more likely second option.

With today's cosmology pretty solidly thinking galaxy expansion is increasing, then the whole massive framework of when will the crunching happen, is I take it not yet provable. — Chuck Beatty

- There are conflicting measurements of the expansion rate. I do not have complete faith that the astronomers have it right
- The rate of expansion has changed in the past. For example it slowed at the end of the inflation period. So it could slow and reverse in future.

Whether there is infinite anything is another question, I am personally of the opinion that there is not, but that is a digression.

Occam's razor would suggest one loop of time. In 4D spacetime, the universe would be shaped like a torus, thin at one point where the Big Bang / Big Crunch are and thick at the opposing point where the universe is at its maximum expansion. Imagine a spotlight running around the loop - thats time, where the light falls is 'now'.

All this is not far fetched - the only place in the universe you can get enough matter/energy for the Big Bang is the Big Crunch.

It has traction as far as I'm concerned:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_timelike_curve

A causal loop is possible according to general relativity. The whole universe could be in a CTC meaning we live the same lives over and over again.

It doesn't apply right here. There's no reason at all to think that the correct sample space is the number of possible values you can think of. Why would it be? Why would it have anything at all to do with what you're capable of thinking of? — Isaac

So for example the strength gravity has to be strong enough for stars and planets to form, but not so strong that we get too fast nuclear fusion or too much black hole formation. It could however be any conceivable value from 0 to ∞ and we would still have a universe; just without life.

How do you know that it is possible for the expansion rate to be any other value? Certainly it's not because the laws of physics allow it, they obviously don't. It's not because maths allows it, maths allows it to be an infinite amount of values, which would mean any value is infinitesimally unlikely, which, by your own definition of infinity, is the same as undefined. So what is your reason for choosing some very large number (but not actually infinity) for the sample space of all the possible values the expansion rate could have? — Isaac

Actual infinity exists only in our minds, but it is still a useful concept sometimes. The expansion rate of the universe is a mystery; we know of no laws that govern it.

The expansion rate of the universe has varied greatly in the past. During the inflationary epoch, the universe expanded to several light years in size in the first few fractions of a second. So we know the expansion rate can take on a large range of values. So a large sample space seems appropriate.

You have not given a context where my assumption of a large sample space for possible physical constants etc... does not apply

Like with the cards example. It turns out it was a magic trick, the number of cards in the deck was not the correct sample space from which to extrapolate the probability of my card being on top — Isaac

You have given no justification as to why this card trick analogy applies; the universe is not tricking use; it could very easily have come out different.

Why would god have created a universe where we could conflate its existence with delusions, or where delusions of any kind exist? — Harry Hindu

Whatever type of universe is created, conflation of existence with delusions is likely possible. Put it this way, on God's required features list for the universe, this would be way down the bottom.

Yes I understand. A particular phase in the chaos could last billions of years. Just think of it in terms of human history. There are periods of peace (order) but actually these are just intervals between war (chaos) which I'm suggesting as the true nature of reality. — TheMadFool

So we imagine countless billions of years throughout which the physical laws and constants are evolving. Eventually, by sheer luck, they hit a configuration that supports life. What mechanism then 'fixes' the universe in that life supporting configuration? Surely something would change to produce a non-life supporting universe again?

You're committing the same fallacy with fine-tuning. You're presuming that the sample space for the event {the universe being fine-tuned for life} must be {all the values you can imagine these variables could have}. Just like at first glance you presume that the sample space for the event {the top card is mine} was all the cards it could be. — Isaac

Lets take an example; the universe's expansion rate is set such that matter can still cluster into stars and planets yet it is expanding fast enough that the whole thing does not collapse back into one big black hole. The expansion rate could be set at any conceivable value - it is not derived from some underlying determinant- so it contributes to the large sample space of possible/feasible universes.

So with the universe. How are you justifying you selection of the sample space {all the values I can imagine these variables having}? — Isaac

There are 20 or so constants that appear to have been fine tuned. If any of these constants turn out to be derivable from underlying processes, then I would argue that it is the underlying processes that have been fined tuned.

Yes I do; there are about 20 constants in physics that all have to be about where they are now for life to exist. The chances of that happening by chance are astronomically small.

I not saying that the universe is definitely fine tuned for life; merely it is incredibly likely that the universe is fine tuned for life.

Either there is no trick involved, in which case I gave the answer above or it is fixed in which case the sample space is 1 and the probability is 1

Well then I suppose it is 1/52 * 1/(audience size) ?

1/52 I imagine.

If the time involved was 13.8 billion years (current estimated age of the universe) I'd be very cautious about inferring a better chance for it being a joke over just plain simple luck. — TheMadFool

But it looks like the laws of physics and the standard model have been constant since the singularity. The Big Bang theory predicts things back to a few fractions of a second before the singularity. It is supported by the evidence of the CMB radiation.

We can still observe photons emitted 400,000 years after the Big Bang as the CMB radiation. These photons are the same photons as we see today, same properties, nothing seems to have changed with the standard model.

I'm not sure about a function, but the number of results that depend on a given result might be a possible metric.

So at the bottom of an inverted dependancy pyramid would be the fundamental axioms of maths, above that the most fundamental theorems and above that, the base of the pyramid, would be newly invented theorems.

A side note: I personally don't believe in the multiverse theory. I believe that the universe naturally fine tunes itself into a stable condition, and stable conditions (big surprise) happen to support life. (But hey, what do I know.) — Purple Pond

There has to be some mechanism by which the very constants/laws of nature change - the standard model has to 'evolve' some how for example. The mechanism usually touted to do this is multi-universes and the SAP. I don't see how the WAP alone can account for this; the laws of nature appear to have been fixed since the Big Bang. The SAP can't account for it either IMO.

I'm not a musician. I like music but am not a musician. However, if I were to sit in front of a piano and press the keys at random long enough I'm sure I could play some sections of Beethoven or Motzart. In other words the supposed order, ergo the anthropic principle, is just a phase in the chaos that is the true nature of the universe. What I mean is there is no order, therefore no fine-tuning. We've all seen order/patterns in random numbers I believe. — TheMadFool

Suppose you where watching a random stream of characters on a computer screen. Its all random jumble then you see the string 'I know you are watching me!' come up. The chances of that happening are 1/128^27 (assuming 128 possible characters). Would you assume you 'just got lucky' or would you assume a computer programmer was having a joke with you? Which is the more likely explanation?

I agree. I think existence has a set typed property: all material objects. We then separately have non-material objects, concepts like 'fairies and square triangles' which cannot be said to be directly part of existence (they exist in our minds so they have indirect existence).

From the point of view of mathematics, the only relevant thing is that the axioms that we invented are not inconsistent (i.e. not contradictory: they are satisfiable in some model). If the axiom of infinity is not inconsistent, there should be some model in which it is true; so in this model the axiom doesn't diverge from reality. — Mephist

I believe the axiom of infinity does introduce inconsistencies, but that is for another post.

I am a bit old fashioned; I believe an axiom needs to be more than just consistent with the rest of the system. Axioms should chosen because they are inductively very likely to be true. We should have strong reasons for believing in our axioms.

If we allow selection of axioms just on the basis that they do not introduce inconsistencies, our math is likely to diverge from alien's maths - the set of possible axioms is infinite - so we are not guaranteed to choose the same ones as the aliens.

Yes, so in my opinion euclidean geometry has an objective underlying reality, even if it doesn't correspond to the physical space-time. — Mephist

Reminds me of the theory of forms a bit. Concepts like perfect circles, triangles, euclidean space all seem to exist independently of any particular mind. I think these concepts don't actually have separate existence rather they are deducible from our senses. So we (and the aliens) see approximate circles and triangles in nature and take the idea from that? Ultimately all our information is derived/deduced/induced from our senses.

That is the weak anthropic principle (WAP) you have given.

The problem with the WAP is that it says that the universe must support life, it does not say why the universe supports life:

[1] By random coincident we got lucky and a billion to 1 shot came off
[2] Universe was fine tuned to support life

[2] is much more likely than [1]. So IMO the WAP does not put a dent in the fine tuning argument. Neither does the strong anthropic principle (SAP).

So my idea is that the axiomatization of mathematical ideas is invented, but our axiomatizations are based on some underlying objective facts of nature that are discovered. — Mephist

In theory, if maths axioms were based solely on observation of reality, then our maths should be the same as the alien's maths. But our maths axioms are not all based on reality (axiom of infinity for example) so I think certain parts of maths diverge from reality.

It is interesting to note that according to relativity, euclidian geometry diverges from reality. But it is a useful approximation of reality and one that any aliens would no doubt have in their mathematical canon.

A mathematical concept is discovered (and then based on an underlying objective reality) if the same concept is present in the mathematics of other intelligent civilizations that evolved independently from ours. — Mephist

Very much so. Maths is logic is information and information predates everything.

It would take logic to invent logic so logic cannot be invented - it must be a discovery.

Sorry you will have to expand on that last point.

It's the first I'm questioning - the possibility space is boundless. I'd say the second applies - we have no evidence for parallel universes but it is not impossible.

I not sure I understand what you mean. I think 'there is no such thing as x' just applies to our observational range; our universe. So it counts as inductive evidence. But that inductive evidence has been gathered in a narrow spacetime interval so I would be hesitant to bet my house on 'there are no parallel universes'.

You've got to be joking. — Terrapin Station

If we judge what is possible just based on our experience of this universe then we miss a huge realm of possibility. How do we know that other states of existence beyond space, time, matter are not possible?

Already something pretty freaky has happened: there is something rather than nothing. So I like to keep an open mind on these things... hence asking you to proof parallel universes are not possible.

How do I control another me in an alternative universe? Is it somehow that my decisions have an impact on the other me's behaviour? If it is not the case, then it is unfair to be sent to hell for the actions of an agent I cannot control.

Some are born into unimaginable hell and die too young to be cognizant of anything but pain — Michelle71

This is the problem of the world - it is not perfect and horrid stuff happens. But things get better with time. I think we are unfortunate to be born in such a barbaric time of the universe - it tends towards perfection.

No such thing as "parallel universes" except for SciF — Terrapin Station

Proof please...

The start of time/causality is a unique event and different from everything we normally encounter. In everyday life, motors and intelligence require causes. Here we are talking about the first cause though so it’s different.

There is no chicken and egg here because it's the first cause - it always existed timelessly and there is nothing logically before it. So asking for an explanation of the first cause is like It’s like asking ‘what is the length of an idea?’ - ideas do not have a ‘length’ and the first cause does not have a ‘why’.

Can’t get something from nothing so something has always existed. That something is the timeless first cause. What is its nature? It must be able to cause change somehow without being changed itself. So it must be self-driven, IE Intelligent.

It seems a timeless intelligence is the only thing that could have caused the universe. There is no point in asking how did the timeless intelligence come about; it did not; it has always existed timelessly.

Following with interest. Thanks.

I was just pointing out a motor is not a valid first cause - a motor has a prior cause - the machinist.

A motor would require intelligence to construct it.