That's where phenomenology dovetails well with Buddhist philosophy, which says that nothing exists in itself, but only in relationship. And also with Rovelli's relational interpretation of qm. — Wayfarer

What is relationship? You mine as well say, "Information processes"... or "occasions of experience" or "actual entitites" or "little green goblins goblining".. It is the fallacy of homunculus on steroids.

A world creates and recreates itself , but in a way that is not accessible to a neutral
overview, because the nature of its fecundity is inherently perspectival. This is why matter is already value-laden — Joshs

Besides the fact that it puts the burden of proof from sentience to the universe itself, how else is this substantiated?

So, from the empirical perspective it is of course true that the Universe precedes our existence, but from the perspective of transcendental idealism, ‘before’ is also a part of the way in which the observing mind constructs the world.

My tentative, meta-philosophical claim is that this implies that in some sense, the appearance of conscious sentient beings literally brings the universe into existence. Not that ‘before’ we came along that it didn’t exist, but that the manner of its existence is unintelligible apart from the perspective brought to it by the observer. We can’t get ‘outside’ that perspective, even if we try and see the world as if there’s no observer. (Sorry for the length of this post.) — Wayfarer

Well, of course you are going to win favors quoting literature about Schopenhauer (and his conception of Kant's Transcendental Idealism). From the man himself:

On the other hand, the law of causality and the treatment and investigation of nature which is based upon it, lead us necessarily to the conclusion that, in time, each more highly organised state of matter has succeeded a cruder state: so that the lower animals existed before men, fishes before land animals, plants before fishes, and the unorganised before all that is organised; that, consequently, the original mass had to pass through a long series of changes before the first eye could be opened. And yet, the existence of this whole world remains ever dependent upon the first eye that opened, even if it were that of an insect. For such an eye is a necessary condition of the possibility of knowledge, and the whole world exists only in and for knowledge, and without it is not even thinkable. The world is entirely idea, and as such demands the knowing subject as the supporter of its existence. This long course of time itself, filled with innumerable changes, through which matter rose from form to form till at last the first percipient creature appeared,—this whole time itself is only thinkable in the identity of a consciousness whose succession of ideas, whose form of knowing it is, and apart from which, it loses all meaning and is nothing at all.

Thus we see, on the one hand, the existence of the whole world necessarily dependent upon the first conscious being, however undeveloped it may be; on the other hand, this conscious being just as necessarily entirely dependent upon a long chain of causes and effects which have preceded it, and in which it itself appears as a small link. These two contradictory points of view, to each of which we are led with the same necessity, we might again call an antinomy in our faculty of knowledge... The necessary contradiction which at last presents itself to us here, finds its solution in the fact that, to use Kant's phraseology, time, space, and causality do not belong to the thing-in-itself, but only to its phenomena, of which they are the form; which in my language means this: The objective world, the world as idea, is not the only side of the world, but merely its outward side; and it has an entirely different side—the side of its inmost nature—its kernel—the thing-in-itself... But the world as idea... only appears with the opening of the first eye. Without this medium of knowledge it cannot be, and therefore it was not before it. But without that eye, that is to say, outside of knowledge, there was also no before, no time. Thus time has no beginning, but all beginning is in time.

Since, however, it is the most universal form of the knowable, in which all phenomena are united together through causality, time, with its infinity of past and future, is present in the beginning of knowledge. The phenomenon which fills the first present must at once be known as causally bound up with and dependent upon a sequence of phenomena which stretches infinitely into the past, and this past itself is just as truly conditioned by this first present, as conversely the present is by the past. Accordingly the past out of which the first present arises, is, like it, dependent upon the knowing subject, without which it is nothing. It necessarily happens, however, that this first present does not manifest itself as the first, that is, as having no past for its parent, but as being the beginning of time. It manifests itself rather as the consequence of the past, according to the principle of existence in time. In the same way, the phenomena which fill this first present appear as the effects of earlier phenomena which filled the past, in accordance with the law of causality. Those who like mythological interpretations may take the birth of Kronos, the youngest of the Titans, as a symbol of the moment here referred to at which time appears, though, indeed it has no beginning; for with him, since he ate his father, the crude productions of heaven and earth cease, and the races of gods and men appear upon the scene. — Schopenhauer

“Will” can naturally have effects only on “will” – and not on “matter” (not on “nerves” for instance –). Enough: we must venture the hypothesis that everywhere “effects” are recognized, will is effecting will – and that every mechanistic event in which a force is active is really a force and effect of the will. – Assuming, finally, that we succeeded in explaining our entire life of drives as the organization and outgrowth of one basic form of will (namely, of the will to power, which is my claim); assuming we could trace all organic functions back to this will to power and find that it even solved the problem of procreation and nutrition (which is a single problem); then we will have earned the right to clearly designate all efficacious force as: will to power. The world seen from inside, the world determined and described with respect to its “intelligible character” – would be just this “will to power” and nothing else. –“ — Joshs

Nietzsche has to lay of the cocaine.

Rejecting Newton’s doctrine, Whitehead takes precisely the opposite stance; Of the ‘Receptacle’— which in Adventures of Ideas is his concept referring to “the general notion of extension” (AI 258; see also AI 192)—he says: “It is part of the essential nature of each physical
actuality that it is itself an element qualifying the Receptacle, and that the qualifications of the
Receptacle enter into its own nature.” (AI 171) In other words, the fact that “the relata modify the nature of the relations” (AI 201) entails that extension as the “primary relationship” (PR 288) between actual occasions, is modified by these occasions. — Joshs

Don't know what this really means, honestly. I know that Whitehead talks about being and becoming and how an entity can change while be persistent, but that's about all I can say on this unless you really give more than neologisms, even Whiteheadian ones.

Updated last post a bit.

I believe that Schopenhauer1 has something to say about this "waste it on griping". But I agree with that, people here living on this globe could reduce suffering. But the first thing for that is not to reproduce - although that is preventing the suffering, not reducing it. — Antinatalist

@Possibility

I mean, the griping can be akin I guess to the "connection" and "awareness". It is collective recognition of the forced agenda, and being compassionate about the shared situation we all find ourselves in (connection). It is trying to not burden too much other people if at all possible, and doing things to alleviate other's burdens.. So there are ideas of reducing suffering, but in this context of the very fact of the burdens in the first place. It is the recognition that we are on a constantly leaking ship that needs to be fixed.. and yes, helping fix the holes, but WITH THE RECOGNITION that it is indeed a never-ending leaking ship that we are all forced onto, that others thought fit to bring more passengers onto to keep fixing the holes, and now burdening them with something to overcome. And with the recognition that this ship has a "maintenance routine" that no one asked for, and cannot accord to any individual's idea of how to run it. The ship (life) has a "situatedness" of physical/social reality that no passenger can alter, but must (even if unintentionally) contribute to. Only within that context is it getting at what is going on.

Part of this process is to get over our fear of death - which is just buying into the agenda of survive, dominate and procreate. But you can’t see that. It’s like you cannot fathom an antinatalist who perceives the potential of life. — Possibility

"Potential of life" doesn't mean anything in the context of "fear of death". However, if you mean the "experiences of life that one may benefit from", I do not deny people can get benefit out of experiences. That doesn't mean THUS life... which supposedly you agree with.

Because I disagree that it’s forced. I’ve already explained this, and you’ve just demonstrated your ignorance of the anything but ‘collaboration’, as if that’s all I’ve said... — Possibility

How do you disagree that it's forced? In fact, you just agreed with Antinatalist here:

Procreation is forcing somebody to this life, and that is no way necessary. Forcing someone to live is deciding for someone else´s life, which this someone has not even any kind of veto, any kind of way to prevent this thing from happening.
— Antinatalist

No argument with you there. — Possibility

And my point is indeed that you can't go along and start praising the collaboration "reduction suffering scheme" without recognizing the forced aspect of its very existence. So no, I won't let you get away with moving forward with the new age talk until you recognize this.

You’re not even reading what I’ve written, just making shit up to argue against, and claiming that’s what I’d say... — Possibility

I can't decipher your neologisms, but the gist seems about right, whether you recognize it here or not. The collaboration awareness, whatever game to reduce suffering that doesn't recognized the forced nature of this scheme. You could make up any scheme you want.. Aristotle's virtue, Kant's CI, Mill's utilitarianism, Maslow's self-actualizing, communitarianism, objectivism, whatever political agenda/scheme you want. All forced. And THAT is where we must start in our ethics. No moving forward until that is properly put into the equation and context. That we are living out someone else's forced agenda, and the implications of this on everything, including reducing suffering.

Part of increasing awareness is acknowledging the sense that we were forced into this situation, but that we have the potential to ‘get out’ in a variety of ways. — Possibility

"Getting out" is a conceit.. Heaven, utopia, fan fiction.. whatever.

We don’t have to comply, but everyone dies eventually. Overcoming the fear of death is not as impossible as you might think. But you won’t achieve it by a passive, verbal rebellion against all aspects of being. Neither will you reduce suffering much this way. If this is your antinatalism, then count me out. — Possibility

This coming from someone who has no concrete examples of anything other than "collaboration and awareness". You want to manage like a business your way out.. The most middling of middle class answers to suffering. Suffering doesn't go away because we work as a "team" to get goals done. The fact that we have to work on anything, is the very point I'm pointing to!!

A perspective is not a passive observation from a certain vantage, it is the creation of something new from
a certain vantage . Any ‘observation’ alters not just what it relates to, but also that which is doing the observing. — Joshs

Right but what is a view without sentience? Besides using Wittgenstein to just say, "This is nonsense!" is there any other good responses here?

I've already had answers like Whitehead and process philosophy, which is adjacent to a kind of pansychism.
I've already anticipated answers like it's all "information processing" or some such.. But then countered that how can perspective come from information processing?

Whitehead's "occasions of experience" and zombie-like information processing are forms of the "localized interactions" that I am talking about in the OP (and that I am skeptical of).

How much misery can a person take ... — baker

Can you elaborate? Or just riffing on the HR thing?

One cannot think of a limit to thought for one cannot conceive of the opposite of thought. It takes thought to conceive. He knows that to have an idea at all in mind is to have logic in play already. One can't imagine a logic-free "world". Having a perspective is exactly the same thing in this matter here.
Imagining a universe before humans is, of course, a conception. When we talk about a Big Bang, it is a projection of what the world is processed in logic and experience. Take away this latter, the BIg Bang is just meaningless. — Constance

Yes, a priori, this kind of conjecturing must be projections and imaginations. We can still try to "describe" it. Like if I say, "What do you think a dog's perspective is like" and you say, "It has a lot to do with smells, patterns of reward, belly rubs, and such" I can still meaningfully gain some insight into this from my limited human perspective without actually "being" a dog myself. Of course, I am never going to have the POV of a dog, but it can be discussed like anything else.

I'm just saying not to use Witty to weaponize any inquiry on metaphysical or epistemological conjectures. Sometimes it's more about how to view a subject matter, not necessarily getting at "it" directly. We all know that there is a contradiction in thinking about non-perspective, but the dialogue surrounding such ideas is not thus a non-starter, it's just keeping in mind that it can only be conjecture.

The conviction that merely reducing suffering is not enough. — baker

She's managing it like an HR person would :D, replete with slogans of "collaboration". You are a individualistic rogue if you think the whole scheme of comply or dying sucks. I gave the example of Willy Wonka's "lovingly" forced game and through analogy what is wrong with the scheme of life in general.

This is one of the best threads I've seen in a long time. Lots of well-thought-out posts. No sniping. Responsive responses. Really interesting. The question of perspectives seen from many perspectives. — T Clark

:up:

It's is just an argument from nonsense. To talk about perspectivelessness is nonsense. — Constance

Nonsense in the Wittgenstein meaning of it? If let's say Earth is no more, what of the universe? That's an event that can (and will) happen. So how is that nonsense? There was a universe "before" humans and "after". So why the hostility? It's not nonsense, you are just unreasonably miffed by the subject. Wittgenstein's idea of "nonsense" isn't a license for shutting down all inquiry in the name of calling out "Nonsense!".

If there is no privileged perspective, then the term 'perspective' stands in its meaning only against other perspectives, and loses meaning entirely in talk about "a universe without a perspective". Anything you say is already "perspectival"; to speak at all implies perspective; to say "without perspective" is itself a perspective. — Constance

This just sounds like a complaint without content. If there are no sentient beings. What then? I'll try to use as little words that you don't like as possible here...

There is no single, privileged "perspective" except in the "mind of God" and this puts the idea clearly in the area of bad metaphysics. This is nonsense. — Constance

Your idea of "bad metaphysics" was just asserted without any jumping from your claim to your conclusion. A philosopher can't just write an article "Bad metaphysics. The end".

But anyways, you seem to be answering your own objections.. Yes, a universe has no privileged perspective on its own. But my question is what is a universe without a perspective? I mean literally, what does that look like? The only thing I can posit that people might say (especially information-enthusiasts) are localized interactions somehow inhering in the universe. But I don't really know if I buy that.

I also get we must use our human language and imagery to describe non-human perspective, but that is assumed in this argument. We obviously can't get outside our own framework. But that doesn't mean we can't have some discussion on it in a conceptual way, even if that really can't translate to our true understanding of it.

No - I think antinatalists would be more convincing if they recognised that it is their valuing life’s potentiality in itself that causes them to despair at such limited actualisation. — Possibility

Gaslighting at its finest. So you think that fear of death is equivalent to THUS thinking it is okay to start life? Oh please try to justify that one.. Fear of death, your justification for life must be worth starting :lol:.Doesn't logically entail.

Also, this is COMPLETELY buying into the comply or die scenario.. You are LITERALLY saying, "If you don't like the agenda, then go kill yourself!". And then when we don't you say, "HA! SEE Life must be good!" Hogwash.

This is fear and naive helplessness. There is potential for these to occur, sure, but the idea that they are ‘inevitable’ is not an objective view. The more we are aware of how this potential develops and the alternative paths, the more we can counteract the circumstances that contribute to it. The more we fear this human potential, especially in ourselves, the less capacity we have to prevent its actualisation. — Possibility

Right, so keep experimenting with more people till we "get it right" :roll:. But we won't get it right because behind all our actions is the "comply or die" gun to our heads. Keep surviving, and overcoming dissatisfaction.. Because STEAMROLLER COLLABORATION SCHEME THAT POSSIBILITY WANTS TO SEE CARRIED OUT!!!

Now Schop1 would have you believe that I am pushing some ‘agenda’ of blind collaboration, but the first step is always to increase awareness of potential. — Possibility

Yes, indeed it is. Awareness of YOUR potential maybe, but not forcing other people's. I mean you fit into the Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs model.. What you forget to include in your little scheme is that we are already put into a scheme where we have to collaborate. This is much of my point. You focus on the collaboration to meet goals (like a manager at a business, but for any aspect of life) and not the forced aspect of this collaboration.

But then I think it’s an important aspect of cosmic evolution - it’s how life learns. As humans I think we have the collaborative potential to transcend this aspect to a large extent, but we keep following the ancient cultural myth of ‘survive, dominate and procreate’, along with the individual self-actualisation myth of ‘power, fame and fortune’ (independence, autonomy and influence). We’re collectively selling ourselves short, increasing suffering in the process, and then focusing on the suffering rather than looking for alternatives. — Possibility

You don't give a concrete example of what "transcend" means.. It's all bullshit hope-vision-imagery with no real "there" there. The only thing I can imagine in your imagined utopia is "collaboration" schemes of people somehow magically "conforming" to the group. This is to take away people's autonomy. If I do work and I think ALL work is meaningless, you're just going to give me some "collaboration" rhetoric.. And try to convince me that I am being a "rogue individual".. Again by focusing so much on collaboration you miss the "forced" aspect of this collaboration. We ALL know that we need to collaborate.. But a lot of times, IT JUST SUCKS!!!

So, given the prevailing antinatalist view that simply BEING currently increases suffering, what is it that prevents us from increasing awareness of our potential to BE different, in a way that potentially reduces suffering? — Possibility

I've given my examples besides the obvious of not procreating. In all aspects of being, there is a comply aspect to it.. So the question itself is always IN LIGHT OF THIS FACT. But you keep missing my point and trying to jump over it to simply "collaborate" without acknowledging background radiation (because we were forced into this situation and can't get out without overcoming fear of death). Unless you acknowledge that blindspot, your philosophy can't get beyond antinatalism. You have not integrated it.

Do you think a universe can persist if there is no observer/perspective? I know we can't imagine that world, but I guess my bigger question is, "what" is being outside perspective?

If you say, there is no "being" outside perspective, that is indeed Idealism and Schopenhauer would get on board with that. But, let's say you weren't an Idealist. Is there any other way to answer this?

I wonder what all that elephant brain's 257 billion neurons actually do; certainly not philosophy. But perhaps some glorious, unfathomable sense of well being. A world of extraordinary experiential depth and breadth, I would hazard, is there. — Constance

I am not discussing knowledge versus other experience here. Rather, I am asking, what is a universe without any perspective? We imagine a universe independent of humans, but that imagining takes on the character of what "we" perceive it as.

We can examine it from a metaphysical ...perspective. — T Clark

That's the point. We can imagine, is different than what is going on. You are giving privilege again to humans. Our view of a "planet" would then be approximately "the planet". How odd and Platonic of you. Our Form of planet inheres in reality.

The conceit of a lot of modern thinking is to believe that science really does exclude the subject. In fact that is impossible. What scientists endeavour to do, is to arrive at an understanding which is as general as possible, devoid of personal, subjective or cultural influences. That's what 'the view from nowhere' is trying to achieve, and it can do that. But it's not a metaphysic. To mistake it for a metaphysic is to lapse into scientism.

It's an inconvenient truth for our objectivist culture that 'the subject of experience' is an inextricable pole or aspect of reality. To which the objectivist will immediately respond: where is this 'subjective pole'? Show it to me! And that's the blind spot. — Wayfarer

I've posted at length about considering Whitehead's process philosophy, as you may or may not remember, way back. A couple times actually.

I agree that people confuse "the view from nowhere" as a scientific approach to include as little bias or cultural influence in the science is different than "the View from Nowhere" which is a sort of metaphysical conundrum of thinking about a universe with no perspective. This latter one is what I am referring to.

And yes, general relativity and some interpretations of quantum mechanics must consider observers, so there is that. But my question also included ideas of localized interactions. Whitehead proposed atomic "occasions" of experiences. That still seems odd to me. I mean it's as good a conjecture as any, but doesn't really get beyond being conjecture.

Information-enthusiasts who reify information processes will somehow try to make the zombie information a point of perspective. For example, in this perspective, RNA decoding and encoding into DNA would be some sort of perspective. Or similarly, electrons interacting with nuclei or other electrons is a perspective. That seems odd to me. It is like a zombie, pseudo-scientific version of Whitehead. Perspective comes about through fiat. The verb "to do" becomes "perspective" here. Making something a process does not confer on it observational powers.

Anyways, interesting ideas.

If every facet of being produces what only exists from its vantage, the it makes no sense to speak of the absence of perspective. If you take away perspective you also take away the very facts that make up a universe. — Joshs

Right but I think you are dancing around an important point. You said here:

So you have a universe continually developing , but not in some perspective free sense, because a perspective isn’t simply an observation for a point of view, it’s a contribution to the production of a universe. — Joshs

I am not sure what that means. How is perspective "a contribution to the production of the universe"?

So I’m reluctant to throw my lot in with the movement while the aim is non-being in general because of suffering (despite continuing to be, themselves). There seems, to me, something very misguided about this. — Possibility

The aim is not non being but not creating situations of unnecessary suffering and comply or die burdens onto another. Non being would be a result. Your steamrolling Collaboration scheme is misguided as much as it is Messianic. That is to say, you feel new people must enter into the (political) scheme such that they interact with the world, probably (definitely) suffer, and learn to overcome suffering. That would be misguided to burden others because you have a notion about people needing to join a steamrolling Collaboration scheme.

For those who say that the direction of scientific knowing is an asymptotic progress toward
truth, what grounds perspective isn’t some ‘really real’ view from nowhere. Rather, dialectical relation is irreducible. There is no perspective-free reality to be uncovered prior to dialectical perspective. Instead, the structural form of the movement of the dialectic itself is the ground. — Joshs

But what is a perspective free universe. One without sentience? Planets planeting? Particles particling? What is being without perspective? I get there is no neutral perspective but I’m asking what is a universe without a perspective at all, neutral, relative, or otherwise?

Or rather … no view anywhere. Case solved. — apokrisis

No, same thing. What is no view even mean? You will use a pseudo view to describe it.

None of this is mysterious - a drama for metaphysics. Just standard biology. — apokrisis

What is a world without perspective? Let me guess, my OP predicts your answer:

So I immediately see apokrisis and others point to "information" being the source of perspective. That is to say, where ever information is being coded and decoded, that local interaction between information components is where a perspective is taking place. But is it? How is information akin to perspective? Perspective, a point of view, seems to be attached to an observer, not an information processor. How can information processing simpliciter be the same as a full-blown observer? I think there are too many jumps and "just so" things going on here to link the two so brashly. — schopenhauer1

So yeah

I notice you went straight to organism. I’m talking no point of view from a sentient being.

@Possibility, stop trying to be semantically pedantic. You know what he means. I’ll phrase it this way:
By procreating the parent is creating collateral damage. Antinatalists don’t want to create unnecessary collateral damage for other people. This not procreating does not create this collateral damage.

Also making a decision as profound as the comply or die agenda for someone else is a political move that violates or disrespect to the dignity of the person who will this have to follow these dictates as a result.

It strikes me that it has a real use for someone who is a physicist, obviously, if they for example are paid for being one. It also seems from what I read that physics may be used in technology. — Ciceronianus

So I stated that the info may be if no applicable value. And indeed it is important to the researcher as is some metaphysics that isn’t applicable is to the philosopher.

To the extent the question why there is something instead of nothing doesn't seek to determine how things came to be, I don't think it's an answerable question at all. Do we want to concern ourselves with an unanswerable question--something that isn't a question? — Ciceronianus

Why not? Does reading a fiction matter other than it being of some value to the reader of the book?

But the axiom at we shouldn't disturb ourselves with things beyond our control addresses well-being, wisdom, living the good life, primarily. Seeking answers to pseudo-questions is certainly to pursue something outside of our understanding, and in that sense control. — Ciceronianus

Not sure why it’s bad in any way. It’s something we can pose. That in itself means something. I’m just against limiting inquiry because it follows some pat answer or because it sounds cool to be more practical. There’s nothing inherently wrong with asking questions that might not have an answer. At least you haven’t provided a justification for not pursuing things, especially if it can be applied to any number of frivolous things we do. I guess if it is causing anxiety it can be a hypothetical imperative to refrain from it but unsure if that is the OPs problem necessarily.

Also sometimes frivolous seeming questions can lead to ideas adjacent so there’s even utility value in it for idea generation.

For example the OP has me thinking on the idea of the necessity of existence vs it’s contingency, modal logic and universes, a persistent apeiron that can’t not be, views of nowhere, perspective from nothingness.

unless you want to disturb yourself about something completely beyond your control. — Ciceronianus

Theoretical physics of how the universe works is out of my control. It just is what it is. Some physics has no real use for humans. Should we not think about it?

Why there is something rather than nothing, though, does not. — Ciceronianus

You don’t know unless you think about it. Thinking about it is in our control.

Some panpsychists are motivated by idealism. Timothy Sprigge is one of these. If you think of Berkeley, but take out the role God plays in maintaining the existence of the external world of ideas, and substitute panpsychism - everything exists in a vast web of mutually perceiving and mutually defining subjects, then I think that is close to Sprigge's view. — Daemon

This is an interesting problem. I’ll call it The Problem of Perspective. It’s akin to the idea of a View from Nowhere. In an odd way, perhaps even Platonic notions of progressive understanding (noesis) was trying to solve it. That is to say, a worm, a termite, a pig, and a human all have a perspective. No perspective would seem privileged as to evaluating truth. Yet a worm can’t discern electromagnetism, nor scientific insights, mechanical theory etc., but humans can. But there is not supposed to be a Great Chain of Being. Yet humans at least act as though we have a privileged perspective to being close to what is “really going on”, more than other animals at least. Now take away humans, take away animals. We get a view from nowhere. Here is true metaphysics. What then exists in the view from nowhere? If you’re imagining a world as perceived and inferenced and synthesized by humans you would be mistaken. What is a non-perspective world? In what way can we talk of it intelligibly? Planets planeting? Particles particling? What does that even mean when there’s no perspective?

Trolling for what? I responded. You said it wasn’t responding to you. I’m asking how. Not trolling.

This is indeed petty. Point out what didn’t respond or get off the pot.

I didn't say you "did not answer", schop; you "answer" but without replying to, or addressing, what I've actually written. — 180 Proof

And I asking how I did not do that. Right now you just seem itching to troll me or start a fight and not a dialogue.

Therefore, according to Occam's razor nothing should actually exist. The way that I am wording it is simply confusing though, hence...if we say that either nothingness or existence is more justified to exist, it must be the case (according to Occam's razor) that nothingness is more justified to exist. — chiknsld

I get what you are saying, and I agree. I am just adding the fact that the absurdity of the unjustified existence is only gotten at by a sentient observer such as ourselves. In other words, its a post-facto epistemic understanding, though it just "is true" metaphysically. The epistemically is what matters here though because I am claiming, a non-sentient universe of "existing" amounts to about the same as "non-existing", again if there are no sentient beings in that world. What is "being" in a non-sentient universe? Is it atoms whizzing, and forces forcing? That would be an odd way of describing being.

Yep, good stuff like here:

No. In reality, we are *NOT* free to do what we want/like, or hope, dream, expect, etc etc etc. Real life / real world / reality is very limiting in what we can do (or be). Let me ask you for example: How many of you are trapped everyday in a job or work that you don't like? And that's just one main example. I still even haven't mentioned about if you have chronic pain/disease/illness for example, it will obviously become a lot/much worse.

I think people like me also have our own valid (& logical, rational) reasons to be a pessimist (or agreeing with philosophical pessimism), when looking at the world, life, (human's) society, existence, & basically the cold, harsh, cruel reality around us everyday (I still even haven't discussed about depressive realism, antinatalism, pro-mortalism, efilism, suicide, etc etc). — niki wonoto

Just a couple things I would add here for a more complete picture.. Basically what is on my profile:

Life has necessary and contingent suffering. Necessary suffering is often considered "Eastern", similar to how Buddhism defines it. That is to say it is a general dissatisfaction stemming from a general lack in what is present. Relief is temporary and unstable. If life was fully positive without this lack, it would be satisfactory without any needs or wants.

Contingent harms are the classic ones people think of. It is the physical harms, the emotional anguish, the annoyances great and small. It is the pandemics, the disasters, the daily grind of a tedious work day. It is the hunger we feel, and the pain of a stubbed toe. It is any negative harm. It is contingent as it is contextual in time/place, and situation. It is based on historical trajectories and situatedness. It is based on the "throwness" (in Existentialism terminology). It varies in individuals in varying amounts and intensity, but happens to everyone nonetheless.

Philosophical pessimism deals with the fact that life has negative value and thus examines the human condition understanding these features. It is similar to atheistic Gnosticism. We are exiled in a way. Antinatalism is often an ethical response to philosophical pessimism, but is not the same thing. Philosophical pessimism often goes with pessimistic dispositions but is also not the same thing. Technically, you can have an optimistic disposition hold claims of a philosophical pessimistic nature such that there is much suffering inherent in life, and can generally agree with such philosophers as Arthur Schopenhauer and their works regarding the striving of human existence and the struggles of negative experiences.

Where did I not answer you?

Oh I see what you are saying. Just basically that there shouldn't be something but there is, and that is absurd. — schopenhauer1

But judgements are made not by the universe. Nothing is "inherently absurd". It is just absurd when an observer (the human) reflects upon it and points out the inanity that there is something at all rather than nothing.

However, my point to this was that brute "something" is pretty much like "nothing" unless there is a POV, because "something" without sentience just "is"(being), and you can call "being" absurd, because its there in the first place, but its the implications of how the reflector (the self-reflective being) assesses what is going on. This assessment is what makes the "absurd" take place. The POV has to be in the equation.. Otherwise, again, being mine as well be nothing without sentience.

Oh I see what you are saying. Just basically that there shouldn't be something but there is, and that is absurd.

One of these declarations is based on Occam's razor that "nothingness" is indeed more justified than existence itself. — chiknsld

Can you explain this? I saw that earlier, but can you say it differently or expand?

But there is noone willing to engage in dialogue. Exactly like Ligotti says above. Seems ironic then to pursue the matter. — baker

Any different than any other project one does continually? Fuck life itself is just that. It’s just that this has no set resolution, but again, life itself.

Anyway, I sometimes have the impression (but it could be just me) that you're still trying to find an alternative to existential pessimism. That perhaps you're looking for the folks who comply with the Agenda to convince you that it's worth it after all. I mean, I have my doubts about existential pessimism, and I couldn't profess it with the certainty you do. — baker

Certainly not looking for convincing otherwise.