To me it just represents the systems we have created to evaluate our actions and choices as "desirable" or "undesirable" — Qmeri

Ok I'll go with that.

since it does not need to be justified since it's a logical necessity and therefore not a choice. — Qmeri

One can argue that the desire to eat is also (while not logical) a necessity. I also showed how "going to stability" isn't a logical necessity either. "Unstable things try to change their state" =/= "Unstable things try to be stable"

I think we should focus on this:

I have a goal of eating.
Therefore according to that goal I should eat. — Qmeri

If this follows then "If I don't eat I would be doing something immoral" would also have to follow (since you say that normative statements automatically define a moral law). Do you really think "If I don't eat I would be doing something immoral" should follow from "I have a goal of eating"?

It seems like you do not understand subjective normative statements. — Qmeri

maybe but I don't think so

It is not a non sequitur. — Qmeri

It is. There is nothing "moral" about eating. Tell me what formal logical law is employed in going from "I have the goal to eat" to "I should eat"

I have a goal to eat
I am hungry

Or something similarly mundane is about all you can get in terms of a syllogism that starts with that statement

even you acknowledged that any system that makes normative statements is a moral system no matter how unintuitive they sound. — Qmeri

Yes. And I think that you are either not making normative statements or if you are they are non sequitors

Also if this was logically consistent:

I have a goal of eating.
Therefore according to that goal I should eat. — Qmeri

Then that would be enough to answer Hume's law. Why wouldn't you just say that if that was your goal?

I usually like to think of myself as a member of a "counsil" that decides what my body and brain does. I have an "office" which is my mind where I can think of whatever I want whenever I want, I can't always convince the counsil to do exactly what I want though :/. You have to keep the other members satisfied or else they will be uncooperative. Other members are different urges, though I sometimes reduce it to just one other member "desire"

Also I find that most of the time, the other members tend to come around to the way you view things if you just leave them alone for a while. Aka, the source of the conflict is usually you trying to hasten or dictate the other members' decisions.

I sometimes play around with the idea that these other members are other "consciousnesses" each with their own mental life (office) and that's where they come up with their ideas. Just a fanciful thought

Recently I wonder if I am a member at all or just a "mediator". Someone who makes sure the other members are satisfied and the discussions flow as smoothly as possible but who has no desires or interests of his own. Because it feels as though these other members dicatate my likes and dislikes, so if I am to try to do anything I am just serving one of them at the expense of the other. This is if I consider "myself" to be seperate from my desires

I find that people change their conception of what "themselves" is depending on the circumstance. When achieving a success, the work, the intention, the willpower, the desire was all "them" but when failing, "they" had the best intentions but "Didn't have enough willpower" for example, suddenly excluding "willpower" from their definitions.

I think dwelling on the definition of self usually has one running around in circles with no resolution

If it's true, it's false. If it's false, it's true — frank

Put those together and you get:
If it's false it's true which makes it false which makes it true which makes it false........

I think that's what he meant

Heat death does not try to change its state unlike the current world which continuously tries to change its state until it reaches the heat death. — Qmeri

Ok so we're judging stability by "does it try to change" rather than the physical definition.

They mean the same thing in both of the cases. — Qmeri

Then it's a non sequitor. Look at it this way:

Everyone seeks to change their state towards stability (fact, by definition/logically necessary)
Everyone should change their state towards stability.

Those are non sequitors. There is nothing normative about the first statement yet it is all you can establish. I agree that it is a goal most people share, but you can't just "sneak in" normative there. So let me look at your comment again.

Any person has a goal of stability by necessity
Therefore from the point of view of any person they should achieve stability by necessity — Qmeri

If the moral should is meant here then these are non sequitors.
"I have the goal of achieving stability"
"I (morally) should achieve stability"/ "If I don't seek stability I would be doing something immoral"

It is entirely possible for something to be a shared goal or desire and for seeking it not to be moral.

In the same way that these are non sequitors
"I have the goal of eating"
"I (morally) should eat"/ "If I don't eat I would be doing something immoral"

Neither of these follow. If you had meant should in the same sense that you use should in "You should turn on the stove to cook the stake" then it makes sense (I (instruction)should achieve stability because I want it) but then you're not making a normative claim

Entropy increases stability — Qmeri

Is literally an oxymoron. Why do you think heat death is more stable than right now? Because that's what this implies

Therefore from the point of view of any person they should achieve stability by necessity — Qmeri

I've heard similar arguments before and I'll reply in the same way, there is always a semantic shift in the use of "should" when this happens. In this statement "should" simply indicates instructions as in "To cook the steak you should light the stove" there is nothing moral about it. To tell the difference between the instructional should and the moral one try replacing them with "would need to"

"People go towards stability" (inevitably)
"They should achieve stability"
"They would need to achieve stability" (inevitably)

The 3 sentences mean the same thing, so it's the instructional should being used here and there is nothing moral about the assertion.

An example of a moral should:
"You should give to the poor"
"You would need to give to the poor" (to do what)

The two sentences are clearly different, so it's a moral should

That is a normative statement, — Qmeri

The mere fact that "should" is in the sentence doesn't make it normative. If it can be replaced by "would need to" or "needs to" then it's not normative

Still, an unstable system is trying to achieve a change in its current state, which is a goal and a logically necessary one. — Qmeri

Agreed. But that implies that it is not logically necessary to seek stability.

I do still think all systems are trying achieve a stable state since we also see this in nature — Qmeri

That's what we see because we have flowers in our eyes. Ever heard of entropy?

This system is trying to solve Hume's guillotine by giving logically necessary personal normative statements — Qmeri

That's what I'm saying though. This is NOT normative. Logically necessary? Maybe but not normative.

The statement is: People necessarily seek stability
A normative statement would be: People should seek stability

This falls right back within the guillotine. You can't go from either of those statements to the other.

To me any system that makes normative statements is a moral system — Qmeri

Agreed but this ain't it chief.

I start with a premise that seems so obvious to me that I think everyone would agree with it. — Congau

Key words: You think. Not everyone actually does.

If the person I’m talking to still doesn’t agree, I’m taking yet another step backwards until we find a common point of agreement. — Congau

I don't think you can do that forever. I think there will be premises you can't take back further. Example: A + B = B + A. Try to take that one back further

that’s exactly where you can attack me — Congau

No that's where I DID attack you. I could have also attacked the first premise

but if the person had had a previous life, he would actually have been a different person in that life. If Peter used to be the prince of Persia in his previous life, that prince would have been something different from the current Peter — Congau

This is all assuming some type of reincarnation. I didn't claim that was the case. What if someone claimed that he lived in heaven before he was born?

If the odds were a million to one — Congau

And who gets to decide that exactly? Say I'm a masochist and I think that getting tortured is absolutely awesome. Does that allow me to torture you without your consent? For me the odds of enjoying a torture session is a million to one so that justifies me torturing you now does it?

It’s up to you to judge. — Congau

This is the central issue. What if I judge that it's ok for me torture you or rob you? Does that justify the act? I don't think any sort of imposing our arbitrary judgements on others makes a permissable moral system.

Therefore everything is trying to achieve stability since instability means that one is trying to change its current state — Qmeri

Not true. Everything is trying to change it's current state =/= everything is trying to achieve stability. Everything could just be wandering from instability to instability

logically necessary personal goal — Qmeri

Again, I don't agree with the use of "logically necessary". It's not "logically necess" to eat food or to seek a more stable state. It's just what we do.

in most cases (not all) trying to achieve personal sustained stability is intuitively moral — Qmeri

Unsubstantiated claim. You haven't given an example and I can think of countless examples where trying to achieve personal stability is not moral such as for example: theft, rape, murder when knowing one won't be punished

but we do see people usually achieving sustained happiness in communities which are not too unstable — Qmeri

Might it not be because we ourselves live in such a community the only happy people we see also belong in the same community

And slave-systems and others with much unhappiness do see revolts and instability reliably — Qmeri

I don't think the history of the past few hundred years is enough to make such a claim.

since it does solve the Hume's guillotine — Qmeri

I don't think it does. First off I don't agree this seeking for stability has anything to do with logical necessity. Secondly even if we give that there is a "logically necessary" goal for everyone that doesn't translate to it being moral to seek. Say eating is a "logical necessity", does that make it moral to eat and immoral to eat?

Luckily, the basic-assumption-problem can be solved by a logical necessity. And we already described a logically necessary goal — Qmeri

What's logically necessary about it? I wouldn't call it "logically necessary". In the same way that food isn't "logically necessary" neither is seeking a more stable state. Sure you try to do both, but there is nothing logical about that

Everything tries to get away from instability to stability — Qmeri

In actuality it is the opposite but I get that what you mean by instability isn't exactly entropy

Also even if we give that this is the case what does that have to do with morality? "Things fall" is not a statement about morality. "People seek more stable emotions" shouldn't be either

And what is the most efficient way to achieve happiness? To create a stable state — Qmeri

Unsubstantiated claim

and forcing some to be always unhappy — Qmeri

You could argue that others being unhappy makes you happy (which is the case a lot of the time, just look at the sweatshops making our clothes). So if your goal is to seek your own stability/happiness the most efficient way to do so is not necessarily to please everyone. Slavery had been a part of stable states for some time but I don't think you'd call it moral, even though it checks all the boxes (increases stability of state and of slaveowners and so would be their goal to achieve it)

want to reduce your desires — ovdtogt

This is the problem. That you desire to reduce your desires will guarantee you fail. Try it. You just end up desiring to keep up the self opression and eventually you either give up or find something else that relplaces the original desire.

My point is, Buddhism isn't about "WANTING to reduce your desires" it is about reducing your desires and that is supposed to happen spontaneously. If you try to will it that will is simply guided by another desire

It would help if you explained what accountant and account mean instead of (see getteir) or (see smith's belief)

:up:

I am driven by a desire to own a Porsche, how does that make me do what I want? — ovdtogt

"I am driven by my desire to own a prosche" and "I want a Porsche" are synonyms. If you do something because you want a Porsche you are doing what you want.

driven by my fear of failure, — ovdtogt

Is an oxymoron

"Driven by our desires" and that would be the same in case everyone did what they wanted and eventually "Driven by our fears" would also be the case as people will use fear to get what they desire. But I'm not really interested in discussing this because very wide generalizations like these are not useful in any way shape or form

Honestly, I don't think it would be so different. Soon enough people will realize that the most realistic way to do what they want includes doing some things you don't want and then we'll be back to the way the world is right now.

What objection? What argument? Quotes please?

:clap: And failing to make or accept this distinction leads to the "destroy the village in order to save the village" catch-22 absurdities with which many antinatalists indefensibly paint themselves into a vanishing corner. — 180 Proof

Odd because me and TheMadFool agreed to make that distinction yet I fail to see how it impacts antinatalism in any way. Who here even claimed that life is inherently problematic? Suffering is the issue.

To do good is to alleviate suffering
— ovdtogt

Bingo! :100: — 180 Proof

No one here claimed that not having children is doing good. The claim is that having children is bad.

"The best option" is "best" IFF neither "already born" is harmed by not procreating nor the procreated is harmed by being born - both conditions met - otherwise, it violates the prohibition against doing any harm. — 180 Proof

Ok so? Are you saying that since someone is harmed either way it doesn't matter which you choose? Even though one choice (not having children) clearly leads to less overall harm in the overwhelming majority of scenarios? Ok then, say I feel like shooting my professor right now. By not shooting my professor I am slightly inconvenienced. Therefore I am allowed to shoot my professor. After all, someone suffers either way.

The relationship of sex to pregnancy is statistical not deterministic - not a matter of volition. Not "nowhere" but somewhere other than the couple's (coupling's) choosing. — 180 Proof

Again, I don't see why this is relevant. The relationship between me pointing a gun at you and pulling the trigger and your death is also statistical as the gun might malfunction. That doesn't make it ok to point a gun at people and pull the trigger does it? Obviously I am using an extreme example.

Your argument "discounts" prospective parents - procreators - as already suffering individuals ... — 180 Proof

Are you claiming that a parent would suffer more by not having children than their children would suffer their entire lifetime? I'm not discounting the parents' suffering, but one would have to show me that this particular couple wants children SO BADLY, that by just not having children they will surpass all the suffering their children will likely experience in a lifetime, keeping in mind that their children will also face the same dillemma of wanting children and there is no good reason to believe will suffer any less by not having their own children than their parents. If you can show that sure, have kids. I don't think anyone can show that though or maybe a negligable number can. I don't "ban" procreation just because it's procreation that's dumb. I think it's wrong because it leads to more suffering than necessary or justified.

Also fun fact: There is a way to satisfy your urge to raise children AND not procreate, it's called adoption, and that does fit your description of "The best option"

I think of this one when I'm not in the best moods

Life: A sexually transmitted disease

The first premise of the argument is not a random belief. It’s something so obvious that everyone agrees on it. — Congau

I'm highly skeptical of the use of "everyone" there. First off how do you know it's everyone? Have you talked to every person who ever lived is alive or will live? Secondly, what's the "extremely obvious" argument in this case favoring either positive or negative ethics. I would have used "everyone you're talking to" instead of everyone. (nvm you adress secondly later but I don't wanna delete it)

Therefore no one has a head start on anyone and so no one has a right to make demands. — Congau

"No one has a headstart on anyone else" does not logically translate to "no one has the right to make demands". You would need to first off define what a "head start" is and what could possibly give someone a "right to make demands" and then show that a "head start" is not one of those things. Those don't seem like they're where you can find a premise everyone agrees on.

if they had a previous life, we don’t know about it — Congau

Someone might claim they do. How do you prove them wrong?

Then you don’t consider it a great gamble. — Congau

Oh so at least we're considering it a gamble now. Good. This is honestly further than most people are willing to give for antinatalism.
Can I buy a house with your money without telling you? I don't consider that a great gamble so I can right? I'm just showing what happens when someone can arbitrarily decide what a "great gamble" is or isn't based on their own beliefs for someone else.

If it keeps progressing as it is I think we're going to eventually end up with everyone living an ideal virtual reality life kept alive by machines until the sun burns out

Once you truly realize the things you desire are causing your suffering you will lose your desire for these things. — ovdtogt

Exactly. Now where did the "wanting to reduce your desires" part come in. Where is the "deny yourself" as you phrased it. Seems to me like you're describing something spontaneous which is how reaching Nirvana is described in Zen (spontaneous and unplanned, if it is planned it's just another desire)

Reducing your fesires does. — ovdtogt

Agreed. That's not what I said though. Desiring to reduce your desires does not bring about change either.

If your desire/wish is to reduce your desire (to be rich, famous....etc) and you are indeed successful — ovdtogt

You won't be successful. In the same way that worrying about worrying won't be successful at relieving your worry

You will not stop 'seeking things' if you do not 'desire' to stop that — ovdtogt

Yes you will. In the same way that you can stop worrying but you won't stop worrying if you worry about worrying. You won't stop desiring if you desire not to desire.

This would more fall under the 'pop' Buddhism you are referring to. This is Buddhism for people in the West who want to be happy without sacrificing their possessions. — ovdtogt

No it wouldn't. "Pop" Buddhism is a version of Buddhism in the West that completely misses the point that is about sitting still and paying attention to your breath for long periods of time to hopefully be more "calm" or "self controlled" in the future. It misses the point because the point of Buddhism is to stop seeking things, but the people that do this kind of Buddhism are clearly seeking "self improvement". There have been countless quotes by Buddhists of all sorts dissing meditation and scholarly approaches to studying Buddhism (especially in Zen) because people use them as just another form of seeking or desiring. The simplest one I heard is

"He who looks for the Dao -Chinese Niravna- loses it"
-Just about everyone important in Eastern philosophy

So there is no difference between the 'desire' to smoke and the 'desire' not to smoke?
No difference between smoking and not smoking? — ovdtogt

I said another desire, not the same desire. Of course there is a difference but they're both still desires. So if your goal is not to desire anything you can't be like "I want to not desire anything". In the same way that worrying about worrying only makes you more worried and doesn't relieve your worry.

Something is true for someone when all he deems relevant sources agree it is true. I don't think it makes sense to ask what is truth in some ultimate sense without referring to the individual. It's like asking "what is anger" and attempting to explain what it is without reference to a person experiencing it. We have never seen "truth" floating around, it's always be SOMEONE that makes truth claims and deems things to be true or false. "Truth" beyond that is as fanciful a notion as unicorns

I expect to be shredded for this

they’re not saying “maybe there are other ways to reach Nirvana” — leo

They actually do that though. That's why there are different "schools" of buddhism

“maybe for some people nirvana cannot be reached by following these truths and this path, maybe for some people it doesn’t exist” — leo

They also say that though. Well, they say "maybe this way or that would be better for you". They don't say "maybe for some people it doesn't exist" though because that'd be like saying "maybe some people don't experience pain" in the stubbing your toe example. Sure, but I'm not going to consider the possibility without any evidence

Curbing your 'sensual' desires is a way to achieve this higher goal. — ovdtogt

Again, this is just another desire. You can't desire not to desire and expect that to work just like you can't worry about worrying to stop worrying

And all the Buddhists that are still alive are bad Buddhists? Interesting interpretation

Isn't the kind of unnatural self denial you're talking about here just a different kind of desire though? I mean, when a Buddhist monk wants to go on a shopping spree say, doesn't it take some effort to stop himself? Isn't that effort driven by another desire? (The desire to be what he thinks a Buddha is supposed to be). In more abstract terms isn't denying a desire always driven by another desire? Food for thought.

The desire to survive even the Buddhist can't do much about. — ovdtogt

So in essence you're saying the best Buddhist is a dead one?

You're talking about "pop" Buddhism which has very little resembling actual Buddhist beliefs. Look at Zen for an example. Zen monks aren't particularly "monkish", they have lives, they laugh, they have personality quirks, etc

Buddhism isn't about not following your desires either. Monks eat don't they?

There’s never an independent third-party judge to settle anything, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make objectively reasonable arguments.
Imagine two scientists arguing whether the Earth is round or flat. No one can settle that discussion for them, but I for one believe, based on thoroughly convincing arguments, that the Earth is round. I arrive at conclusions about ethics in the same way, through convincing arguments. There’s no difference. — Congau

Agreed. But every argument has to have premises. And at some stage you can no longer break the premises down into other arguments. At that point it is a matter of opinion. I'm saying that positive vs negative ethics is one of those irreducible presmises. Just keep asking "Why do you believe this" and eventually you'll have to answer "Just cuz"

I was referring to procreation as such. You don’t know if the future child will predominantly suffer or be happy, so procreation as such is not bad. — Congau

So it's fine if I gamble with your money without consent? After all you COULD win. I think that if an action risks harming someone else and there is no good incentive to take said action then it is wrong. Even if there is a chance the person in question benefits

you are to accept your 'fate' your 'lot' in life — ovdtogt

Nowhere in any Buddhist scriptures (as far as I know) is this said

But if you say it’s the Truth that others can share the same experience, or it’s the Truth that others will have such experience if they follow such practice, then you’re not a relativist — leo

So... If I believe you will experience pain by stubbing your toe then I'm not a relativist

You asked: “in order for someone to be a relativist he has to believe in some kind of objective reality?”.

I said yes, a relativist believes that other beings exist besides himself, and that these beings have their own point of view, so if you agree with the earlier definition of objective reality then you should agree that a relativist believes in some kind of objective reality.

And a relativist can believe that some other people do not believe in an objective reality, but then these other people wouldn’t be relativists they would be solipsists. The relativist himself does believe that these other people exist even when he doesn’t perceive them.

A relativist believes things exist beyond himself, but he cannot claim to know that it is True otherwise he contradicts himself. He isn’t certain that there is an objective reality but he believes in one. — leo

Agree so far

Now how does this transition to: If I believe there is a McDonald's around the corner I am not a relativist or If I believe one can experience pain by stubbing one's toes I am not a relativist

You can say it, you can believe it, but you cannot say that it is True beyond yourself — leo

Oh ok. Now what makes you think Buddhism isn't doing just that. The Buddha made no mention of objective/subjective, he simply explained how he reached Nirvana and based on the reasonable belief that others can reach it too (since they're also humans) told people how to do so.

Buddhists pretend to know something that is True beyond themselves — leo

Where did you get this? I think we need to flesh out the difference between "Know something is True beyond oneself" and "Believe something is True beyond oneself" (for example: I can believe that if you stub your toe you will experience pain but that doesn't disqualify me from being a relativist)

you consider that there are things that exist beyond your experiences, so you consider that there is an objective reality. The alternative is to think that other beings reduce to your experiences, that they don’t have experiences of their own and don’t exist when you don’t have experiences of them, which is solipsism. — leo

Ok sure, I agree with you using that definition but by that definition one is either a solipsist or believes in objective reality. There is no room for anything else.

but if you believe other beings can experience it then you believe in an objective reality. — leo

I call that "Intersubjective", as in the experience arises in the mind for all we know (we don't know if there are shapes making the shadows or if the shadows are all there is to use the cave example) and a similar experience arises in many people's minds. Why would believing others can share the same experience mean one is not a relativist? I don't see the points as related. So if I believe that if you stub your toe you will experience pain that automatically means I'm not a relativist

Yes, otherwise how can there be relativism if there aren’t other points of view beyond our own? — leo

How does this relate to what I asked?

any point of view is inherently more true than any other. So for instance a relativist wouldn’t say that there exists a state (Nirvana) that everyone can access, the relativist would say I’ve seen that I can access this state but I don’t know whether others can — leo

How are these equivalent? Why would thinking that there is no point of view more true than any other amount to not being able to say "You can feel x by doing y"

while presumably a relativist would claim no such thing. — leo

Again, I have no idea why you think this is the case

If in Buddhism everyone can attain Nirvana in principle then this can be a common goal of all people, so this isn’t relativism in which no such common goal exists. — leo

Buddhism never says "You should attain Nirvana" so it's not a common goal, it offers a solution to suffering if you want to take it in the same way that a doctor may write a book about how to improve eyesight but that doesn't mean everyone must have 20/20 vision.

Perhaps I am confused by theories, but wasn't the idea of the shape of the earth once a scientific theory? What was once a scientific theory is no longer a theory. — Weynon5x

The shape of the earth is not a theory. If you could go to space and look you'd see it's round. A theory is the EXPLANATION as to why something is. Gravity is a theory because you can't see it directly, it is just an explanation as to why things move in orbits, why planets form, etc. It is no more than that: An explanation made by humans for humans' use. You can explain planets moving in orbits in a miryad of ways for example: "God moves them and he just feels like moving them in a circle right now" but that's not very useful is it so is not a very good theory. "The earth is round" is not a theory, it doesn't aim to explain anything

But Buddhists' have a concept of not-self and unconditioned existence — Weynon5x

That.... Is very loaded. Buddhist say that if you treat nirvana as a goal or concept similar to any other you will never reach it. Nirvana is more: The state of mind when one no longer confuses concepts for reality anymore. That's why there are famous sayings in Zen and Buddhism such as "Those who seek the Buddha lose him" stated 100 different ways. Nirvana is a concept and such those who attain it do not think of it as a "state" anymore. No one who has attained to Nirvana thinks to himself "Yay I finally got to Nirvana" because Nirvana is defined as no longer being actively attached to anything and "Yay I finally got to Nirvana" is just another form of attatchment (attatchment to reaching Nirvana). So while Buddhists do have a concept of Nirvana, those who have attained it lose the concept just like any other

Why can't there be a possible world where we can know that we understand gravity? — Weynon5x

What evidence do you have that gravity will not simply stop working 5 minutes from now?

Yet, if we were to affirm a theory and fully understand the interactions of whatever creates gravity and things like gravity, then we would no longer be applying a false concept. — Weynon5x

Even assuming this is true how will we ever "affirm a theory". How can we guarantee the theory won't be proven wrong in the future? We can't. So whatever we do we will still be working with a false concept as you call it (though to Buddhism "false" is included in the definition of concept)

In a possible world where we discover how gravity works — Weynon5x

Such a world is impossible because we'll never know for sure we discovered how gravity works.

and since there is no third-party judge we can never settle once and for all who is ultimately right, — Congau

That's all I'm trying to say. So asking "what justifies a positive ethics" is ultimately only answerable by "because it makes sense to me"

Doesn't space consist of a web of particles — Weynon5x

A Buddhist would reply "what is space" and "what are particles" and these are good questions. You have to keep in mind that space and particles aren't a "property of the world" they are part of a scientific theory that helps explain the world.

Even if they aren't trying to explain the world and they view conceptions as illusions that supervene over the reality of what make up aggregates, I am still curious as to what the metaphysics of such illusions would look like. — Weynon5x

"Metaphysics" is also a man made concept no? That's why Buddhism doesn't have a metaphysics (actually idk about all forms of Buddhism but I know Zen doesn't) not a morality. Both are man made concepts that Buddhism sees as blinding to the way things "truly are" unsullied by such concepts

These are also aggregates that can be broken down further and further until we get to the subatomic area of business that consists of particles with mass (proton, neutron, quarks — Weynon5x

That's not true though. We don't necessarily get down to protons neutrons and quarks. That's just the way we broke it down for now. There are countless scientific concepts that have been abandoned like "ether" for example, nothing says protons, neutrons and quarks are "correct" and won't be abandoned. That's what Buddhism means by "change", change of concepts

If gravity is the interactions of gravitons — Weynon5x

Only if though. Notice how the concept of "Graviton" is fairly recent. Had the internet been around before it you'd have been talking about "gravitational force" instead. "Force" vs "Exchange particle" is a pretty big change if you ask me.

if something threatens your life and you desire not to suffer then you are supposed to be content with the situation and accept your fate — leo

I don't think this is correct. In Buddhism, Zen and Daoism you're not "Suppsoed to" do anything. The whole point is to stop trying to attatch yourself onto anything and to "act naturally". If screaming in pain is what's "natural" for you you're not supposed to opress that. In Zen, Buddhism and Daosim the only think you're supposed to do is not interfere (aka you're supposed to do nothing)

it could be possible to progressively change the way things are to get to a state where all of our desires are met. — leo

Psychologically and Neurologically speaking that is actually impossible for an extended period of time. You wil ALWAYS continue to want things. Buddhism isn't about supressing that, as that is just another want. You can't just go like "I want to not want things" that's a contradiction. Buddhism is about not interfering so you go like: "". You're still allowed to have emotions, just don't support or supress them.

Buddhism doesn't end suffering, it reduces it significantly by showing you that anything you try to do to reduce it only makes it worse

I recommend "The way of Zen" by Alan Watts, it's been a good read so far for me and it will adress precisely what buddhism is promoting much better than a coment can