#2 means the circumstances were a necessary condition for the act of hitting to take place - that means it is part of the cause. (As I've said, this has no bearing on moral accountability).

Can anyone give me an example of an argument that we know is deductively valid and has correct premises but do not have knowledge of the structure of? Is there a sub-branch of philosophy that deals with such things? I can't find anything on it anywhere. — ToothyMaw

What makes you think there is such a thing?

It's hard to imagine animals developing semantic moral guidelines by abstract reasoning and language. Until we can observe animals doing this, there is no reason to assume they are ethical creatures — Merkwurdichliebe

If "ethical" = adhering to semantic statements of "oughts", then you're right. My point was that many animals exhibit empathy, which I propose is the pre-verbal basis that grounds morality.

Sure. However:

1. The circumstances were caused.
2. Had those circumstance not occurred, Smith wouldn't have had the choice to make.

You avoided admitting that the circumstances (in which a choice is made) have been caused

Do you believe Chris rock caused Will Smith to hit him? — NOS4A2

Of course not. Smith made a choice in the circumstances he was in. However, those circumstances came into being by factors outside of Smith.

Chris Rock didn’t cause Will Smith to rise from his chair any more than he caused the rest of the audience to remain seated — NOS4A2

I'm astounded that you believe Smith would have hit Chris Rock even had Chris not been on the stage or opened his mouth to speak. That's totally irrational.

A period is a fuzzy concept. It could mean a small, physical mark, of no specific shape, a set of pixels; an abstract concept, a word that English speakers interpret as a semantic clue. I'm only reifying it if I treat it as an abstract object that exists in the world. I assure you, I don't.

The problems with "period" aren't present for electron. I regard an electron as a type of ontic object, -specifically, objects with a certain set of properties (such as -1 electric charge, a specific rest mass, etc). I gather you disagree, so I'd like to understand your point of view.

A ‘kind’ is not a category, object, identity. It is a differentiation. There are no quantities within kinds. — Joshs

Isn't "electron" a kind? Do they not all have an electric charge of quantity -1?

What I reject is the idea that the regularity and consistency of physical relations reduces to differences of degree that are not at the same time differences in kind.
Put differently, quantitative measurement introduces qualitative change at every repetition of the counting. — Joshs

I don't follow you, but I'll elaborate on my view: laws of nature are relations between kinds of things. Kinds are universals, and laws of nature are universals. This is the metaphysical theory of law realists.

Your first sentence sounds consistent with law realism. I don't know what to make of your second sentence, other than that it sounds like an interpretation of quantum mechanics. Please explain.

Are you a nominalist?

I was with you in your first paragraph. But the fact that there is structure to the world does not mean that the world comes to our awareness packaged an ‘inherent’ way that is already mathematical. Nature became mathematizable when we contributed our own peculiar interpretive structures to it. — Joshs

No, it's not packaged in an inherent way, but the success of our inferred mathematical relations suggests there is an ontological basis to it.

As you can see, I’m a mathematical constructivist, not a platonist.

I'm also not a Platonist. I have an Aristotelian view of immanent universals (more directly: an Armstrongian view).

Like I said, what if guns were taken out of circulation yet the degree of violence continued with cases of stabbings that effectively made little difference to the kill count? — I like sushi

Real world experience shows that it does make a difference. See this.

Empathy is psychologically subjective condition that we share with other advanced animals. It is itself rooted in ability to assess the mental state of another being. — magritte

I don't agree that empathy entails assessing the mental state of others. Rather, it is a vicarious feeling - reacting as if it were happening to ourselves (hence it is also tied to self-preservation).

Aren't values more permanently independent of our temporary psychological states?

Why think they exist independently of the minds that hold them? The concept of Spider-Man can be shared despite there not existing such a person.

How do we get from a condition of empathy (or hate) to values that can guide us in our actions?

We develop semantic moral guidelines by abstract reasoning and language.

The relevant language is grounded in our common set of perceptions and emotions, and shaped by our social environment.

specifically at gun control. My point is why everyone is obsessed with this debate rather than focusing more carefully on what drives someone to kill in the manner they do in the US whilst in other countries this kind of thing is rare. — I like sushi

Mental health problems exist in every country. Access to guns is the distinguishing factor.

Why is math effective? Because there is structure to the world that is describable with mathematics.

Why is the world describable with mathematics? Because there are regular, consistent physical relations between objects that have an inherent mathematical component (like an inverse square law).

Why are these relations present? They just are. We're they not, we would not be here to question.

Why is it more reasonable to expect an absence of such relations?

NOS4A2 is conflating causation with moral accountability, and has an extreme view of libertarian free will (LFW).

LFW implies there is a degree of choice independent of the external environment, not that there is a complete absence of external environment.

Chris Rock was part of the Will Smith's external environment. Had Chris not made the joke, Will would not have hit him. Chris played a causal role. This does not eliminate or lessen Will's moral accountability, but clearly Will was reacting (inappropriately) to Chris.

Isn't the golden rule an objective rule for moral values? — magritte

By me, absolute is unconditional, supreme; and objective is mechanical, mind independent. — magritte

Theists define Objective Moral Values (OMVs) as objectively existing (ontic) objects that exist independently of human beings. By asserting the existence of OMVs, they infer that a God must exist as their source. I don't believe such things exist.

We have moral beliefs ("x is wrong"), and I propose these beliefs are rooted (non-verbally) in feelings of empathy. It feels wrong when we see someone being hurt. We apply abstract reasoning to verbalize this into a "rule".

The golden rule is "objective truth" in the sense that it feels right to all proper functioning humans - all have the root feelings, and therefore agree with it. It's a property of humanness; it's part of our makeup. But the rules don't exist independently of us.

Well science keeps pointing to a Regular and Rational nature of reality. There are mysterious aspects of reality but every mystery we solve tends to verify the above rational and regular nature of our world.
So I don't see any difference between the term supernatural and a label we use as an "answer" to a mystery. — Nickolasgaspar

The supernatural would be some aspect of reality that is apart from the rational/regular nature of the natural world, not merely an unsolved mystery of the natural world. Consider that we don't know what dark matter is, but no knowledgeable person would label it as supernatural.

How did things get this out of hand? And secondly, how much more government redundancy and representation is needed to make Americans feel safe regarding our democracy? — TiredThinker

Enthusiasts want guns for self-protection, hunting, or because it's a fun hobby. The claim that it's to prevent tyranny is cover, to provide a facade of nobility to their hobby, and it's utter nonsense.

How did things get out of hand? NRA propaganda played a big part. They created the memes that created the sense of self-righteousness so many have.

When mass shootings occur, somehow the debate is always about gun control and never about why kids are massacring kids. — Tzeentch

Really? The Governer and Lt. Governer of Texas are talking about mental health problems today. Not that they'll do anything about it, but they'd rather talk about this than the fact that the only recent changes to Texas gun laws were to make it even easier to buy one.

I haven't disagreed about agency - of course everyone is accountable for their own direct acts - irrespective of their information environment. But this doesn't negate the fact that information has influence.

Suppose your next door neighbor has a swastika tattoo, a number of guns, and you often hear him ranting about (n-word)s. Would you share with him complaints about negative encounters you'd had with specific black individuals - knowing that he might take aggressive action against them? If he murders a 10 year old who threw rocks at your car, were your complaints not a factor that led to the murder?

Morality is a set of norms, rules, commandments and values....Animals may show empathy and fairness, — Matias66

Personally, I don't believe there exist "objective moral values" - in the sense of existing transcendantly - external to human beings. My theory is that morality is rooted in empathy. Empathy is a plausible basis for the "golden rule" - a formalism that seems to have developed independently in various cultures. We also know that psychopaths have an absence of empathy, and their behavior demonstrates an absence of morals.

If I'm right, then animals share the foundation of morality - empathy, but they lack the powers of abstraction to codify it into a "rule".

Chimps do not have anything comparable, they have no rules, no norms to follow. — Matias66

They have limited powers of abstraction and limited ability to speak to one another.

A connection, influence, the words caused me to go buy something—it’s all figurative. None of it negates the conscious, decision-making process, which is the true cause of one’s activity. Words cause none of it. — NOS4A2

Of course we make conscious decisions, and bear responsibility for those decisions. But an optimal decision making process consists of a deliberation based on information that has come to our attention. This information comprises an external influence - it is a factor. In the absence of certain information, the specific decision would not have been made. It is therefore part of the causal chain.

If, for example, I get bitten by a dog, isn't it a good idea to think from then on that all dogs are dangerous? To err on the side of caution, to be on the safe side, would necessitate that I immediately, after the dog bite, treat all dogs as threats, oui? — Agent Smith

If the first person from Myanmar you ever encounter happens to rob you at gunpoint, should you think all Myanmar-ites (?) are dangerous?

It's a hasty generalization for dogs and Myanmar-ites. But you don't have to judge either group to still behave prudently when you encounter another.

In general, your questions are very good. I'll need to think about them some more.

Personally, I would avoid events of this kind. — Wayfarer

Not a problem. At my age, such events avoid me.

It's not the new covid, its the new AIDS, aka 'gay plague'. — unenlightened

It's not even the new AIDS, because there's already a vaccine for it.

I think the simplest and possibly most virtuous solution to this paradox by my lights is just to say that the truth-value of such paradoxical propositions is a brute fact, as to whether they are actually are true or false, I think this is most likely unknowable. — By My Lights

I don't think such propositions have a single truth value: they are dialetheia, sentences that are both true and false.

does this suggest brute facts are logically necessary? — By My Lights

No. First of all, because they don't actually have a single truth value. Second (assuming you choose to assign only one truth value), there is no logical necessity to your choice.

On the other hand, I do think it is logically necessary that there is at least one brute fact* The PSR suggests there's a chain of explanations, but the chain must end somewhere - at an unexplained brute fact.

* I do not actually think that propositions actually exist unless they are articulated by a mind, so I'm talking about their hypothetical existence: hypothetically, everything about the world is explainable in some set of propositions.

As Reagan said, government is the enemy. — Jackson

I assume you'll decline accepting Social Security payments from the "enemy".

Congratulations are on your immunity to influence (I wonder how you make any purchase decisions if you avoid all external influence), but that doesn't dispute what I said, as a broad, general rule.

What is the connection? — NOS4A2

Words/information cause reactions. That's why advertising works.

Bullets can tear through a person’s body. Shooting someone is justifiably a criminal act. Words possess no such force, have zero connection to another’s actions, and thus speaking cannot be justified as criminal act. I think your view is magical thinking. — NOS4A2

I'm sympathetic to your position, but it's false to claim that one person's words have zero connection to another's actions.

I don't think anyone has mentioned dialetheism:

A dialetheia is a sentence, A, such that both it and its negation, ¬A, are true. If falsity is assumed to be the truth of negation, a dialetheia is a sentence which is both true and false.

Dialetheism is the view that there are dialetheias...dialetheism amounts to the claim that there are true contradictions.

Examples include: Russell's paradox, and the liar paradox.

If two objects are physical, by which I mean they occupy a space (any space) and are of finite extension - that is, neither object occupies all of the space in which they exist — Daniel

According to Quantum Field Theory, every quantum field exists at every point of space. Particles are quanta of these fields, so (per the theory) these fields are the fundamental basis for all matter.

Quantum fields don't fit your definition of "physical", and I think that's a problem.

OK then, how can these "facts" be established as true?
— Relativist

By using your mind — Hillary

LOL! Sure, but explain the reasoning that unequivocally establishes your claims as fact.

I haven't challenged the coherence of your claims; I'm just pointing out that they still assumptions- not established fact. — Relativist

They can't be established as physical facts by experiment but they are part of this universe, like virtual particles are. They are obvious physical facts. — Hillary

OK then, how can these "facts" be established as true?

Understand, I don't care what you believe, but you're presenting your view as some established facts - which they aren't. If you merely want to say these assumptions of yours are reasons to reject what I'm saying, that's fine.

Only 5. is metaphysical. The first four are physical. — Hillary

You don't understand what metaphysics means. Here's an excerpt from the Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy:

Metaphysics ... refers to the study of the most basic items or features of reality (ontology) or to the study of the most basic concepts used in an account of reality

Here's a few of your metaphysical assumptions:
1. there are two different kinds of time.
2. Emergent causal thermodynamic time
3. non-directional, fluctuating time
4. timeless state
5. Existence of gods

It's a coherent, self consistent cosmology uniting different disciplines in physics into a solid, rational description of the cosmos. — Hillary

I haven't challenged the coherence of your claims; I'm just pointing out that they still assumptions- not established fact. Therefore, they don't defeat my claims.

But there are two different kinds of time. The emergent causal thermodynamic time and the non-directional, fluctuating time state before that. It doesn't make sense to say the TD timeless state exists in time. That timeless state doesn't need time to be created. It doesn't exist in your time-framed way. It's in direct contact with heaven. Though here I maybe go a bit to far. — Hillary

You went too far with your first sentence.

I'm demonstrating that proofs of God's existence depend on questionable metaphysical assumption, and therefore don't comprise an objective proof. Your objection depends on still more questionable assumptions about the metaphysics of time.

Nevertheless, my position is simply that there is a fundamental basis of material reality. This applies irrespective of the number of types or dimensions of time. As the basis, it can't NOT exist- not at any point in any dimension or type of time.

Still, in terms of established science, time is of one type, one dimension, and uni-directional. The "proof" of God that is being considered here is based on this standard paradigm. It has been alleged that a finite past (in this paradigm) entails that material reality must have been caused. I have shown that to be a nonsequitur. It is not entailed by the paradigm, and it depends on making convenient assumptions.

It's not just semantics. Existing at all times is not existing eternally. — Hillary

You're objecting to the meaning of the word "eternal". That is arguing semantics.

Of course something exists as long as it exists so at all times there are. How else can it be.

I didn't merely say it exists at all times it exists. I said it never DOESN'T exist. There is no time prior to its existence, and it never ceases to exist.

To be clear, I'm referring to the fundamental basis of material reality, whatever that might be. This doesn't preclude multiple dimensions of time. I merely assume there is a fundamental basis that is sine qua non for material existence.

I disagree because usage of the word "eternal" here for universe which has a beginning brings only confusion into discussion. — SpaceDweller

I don't care, it's just semantics. My fundamental point is that it's coherent to say material reality exists at all times and this precludes it being caused.

You can make different metaphysical assumptions that would make a creator necessary, but you can't prove those assumptions true. That's the nature of all "proofs" of God: they depend on debatable metaphyical assumptions, made conveniently by theists to convince themselves they've "proven" God.

The cause can be acausal. — Hillary

That sounds self-contradictory.