The expanding universe model has many, many theoretical explanations, and none defy the continuing event of entropy.

Only closed systems are statistically required to increase in entropy — Pfhorrest

It's not a statistical reality. Energy levels equalize, via heat transfer. They can't unequalize. This leads to the depletion of useful energy, as work (change) can only be attained by using the energy between two unequal energy states.

I think your concept of entropy is way different from mine. I don't know what yours is; I just described mine. It would be helpful for me to know what you mean by entropy.

Can you expand on this? I'm not sure it follows. Could it not be that there are infinitely many finite events. — edicts fiori gilt

I think Wayfarer meant that there are two cosmic clocks: one gets reset every so often, and that is the clock, so to speak to the time that it shows the world's events are tied to, on a one-to-one bases, accountably to every infinitely small or finitely large moment or span of time; and there is another clock, that keeps on ticking and not getting reset every time the circular clock does. The clock that keeps on ticking conceptually can measure the time elapsed between many circular time-universes.

Think of it as years. In each year we have the months repeating from january to december inclusive. Then this repeats. But we have years, also. The repeating months would be the circular modus operandi, and the years, the straight-line counter. The entropy would be tied to the circular time, and on the straight scale, it would appear to reset itself, while on the circular clock it would not be noticable how and when it resets itself.

It can, but it won’t. That’s sort of the whole point. Statistically speaking, it is almost impossible for entropy to decrease in a complicated system — khaled

I thought that it couldn't. It turns out that it not only can, but it does. Much smarter men and women figured this out. I researched the topic because I wanted to publish my idea, and it turns out the physicists have already figured out the time span at the end of which entropy resets. Don't ask me, I forgot the value, it's some huge number of picaseconds. And I have no clue why, how, and in what process entropy gets reset.

If the universe existed eternally, and if all events have a finite duration, then everything that could have happened, would have finished already. — Wayfarer

Yes, and then the events would repeat again and again and again.

Everything possible not only has happened, but has happened an infinite number of times.

And that would be impossible if entropy was not something that could be reset to an earlier state.

I would say entropy is a physical event recognized by humans as such. Not merely a human concept divorced entirely from reality.

Yeah, teachers are pretty awesome. If only they could teach some motivation and emotion control into me. — Noah Te Stroete

Be careful what you ask for. Hitler did not come up with his ideology by himself in a vacuum. Nor did Noriega, Nigeria, or Nagasaki.

"Hallja, maga, Nagasaki!
Mit gondol on, miben szaki?
Nem vagyok egy ki muszert szar ki,
De megy nekem a faki, szaki."

An associated question: What if the computer tells you it is aware of itself and not simply aware to the extent it can answer questions? What would be your test for self-awareness? — jgill

There is no sure fire test. You can't ask me and I can't ask you any question that tests self-awareness. If you say you have it, then from my point of view it could be true, or it could be just a programmed response.

That's great! I am happy for you.

Come to think of it, I also think, to this day, that two plus two is four. Sometimes these teachers are wickedly good in what they do, as far as teaching life-long moral or conceptual truths go.

My first grade teacher actually did this to us, but she told us the moral of the lesson within five minutes. — Noah Te Stroete

That's like taking the mystery out of "how much is two plus two", and then the next second telling the kids, "Well, it's four, of course, you little cretins."

So...teaching creationism in bible school is immoral. Or that christ has risen. Or most other bible stories.

I agree with that.

then how come the religious claim that the core of their (and others') moral behaviour is based on the bible?

Are you ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY sure that lying to children is ALWAYS immoral?

Telling little school children (grade 2 or 3) that blue-eyed kids are inferior, and brown-eyed kids are good children. Then next week, after a social structure had solidified on this precipt, the teacher saying to kids that she had been mistaken, it is actually the brown-eyed kids that are inferior.

This supposedly would teach the kids the value of prejudice.

This has been done actually and for real by a school teacher, but the experimenting was short lived, because the local school board trustees thought that the moral of the story was too complex for 8 to 9-year-olds to internalize.

Number of switches and loops and feedbacks are only a prerequisite for consciousness to exist in a system. Another prerequisite is the dependence on the switches 1. to react to the environment, and 2. to have a capacity to have control over their own selves. I.e. if the switches can control the switches (in a communal fashion of switches) to produce effects, which effects would be progress for the entire set of switches, then consciousness would occur.

We, as a creator of artificial intelligence, have so far failed to instill a general dominance of switches over their own states in machines, and we also have failed in creating something that the machine would consider a progress for itself.

BTW, the two effects that I mentioned, are evidently using the switch mechanisms to create consciousness in animals, but are failing the switch mechanism of comparable complexity to create consciousness in plants. Plants have no power over their own switches, although their switch-systems are also DNA based, and equally as complex as those of animals.

the 1958 National Defense Education Act — Athena

I love even the sound of this! (Sarcasm.) Some corollaries:

Regional Gun Firing Marital Fidelity Act
National Prevention of Rod-Saving Child Act
Municipal Police Brutality Act
National "Deeds, Not Words" Policing award gala
"Let them shoot each other into a heap" Drug Diffusion Crime Prevention Act
1958 "Dumb 'Em Mother-Fuckers Into Submission Via Stupidity" Education Act
Martha and Abigail Bishopp Violent Behaviour Enhancement and Proliferation Act
Roe v. Jane
Doe v. Jade
Dr. No v. 007
The UN-sponsored International "Let Us All Deny the Holocaust" Festivities and Mardi-Gras Week
High School Intramural "Body Fat is Ugly, But So is Will-Power" Long-Distance BigMac Eating Marathons
KKK Summer Solstice Sacrificial
High School Confidential
Prom night
Shit Myself Silly
Bad Trips

In a population, a level of moral adherence to morality and law is unevenly distributed. Everyone breaks the law, some law. Some break it innocuously, such as driving 51 miles per hour for a few seconds in a 50 mi/h zone, or lightly touching a conversation partner's forearm for effect. Some break it severely, they commit high treason, crimes against humanity, murder, rape, and theft or fraud into the millions.

Lack of laws and lack of social coercion to behave, so to speak, would drive society to lawlessness. Because of the deterministic effect of legal punishment, society is relatively a peaceful place in the western industrialized world.

You can curb crime in some of the people all of the time, in all of the people some of the time, but you can't curb illegal behaviour in all of the people all of the time.

Plato does think they are actually existing, but in some different realm from the physical things that exist in space and time, — Pfhorrest

Can you name a page number reference on an easily accessible copy on the Internet to this notion in the book? I am not challenging you, I am challenging myself.

I know Plato insists they are everlasting, and perfect. But I don't recall them existing in world where everything is everlasting and perfect. But then again, my memory is crappolo.

Thanks. Very interesting. I hope you won't take offence, but I don't buy this. I am an existentialist; I believe that existence exists. Cogito ergo sum. I exist. What my matter or consistency, or state, protoplasm, proteins, or essence is, who knows. But I exist, and that's good enough for me. No math can disprove that for me.

If everyone is an agnost... (which I support... but then why create a word that only applies to humans but does not delineate any sub-group... a human condition that is pervasive across the whole species?)... then everyone is also an atheist.

No Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc. believe in the deity Zeus or Jupiter etc. Not believing in gods is atheism. Ergo, all Christians, Jews, Muslims, are atheists.

Absolutely nobody believes in all the believed gods. We are all atheists.

(I did not come up with this. It's common knowledge.)

So to say ""what morality is" is a function of Descriptive Ethics", is just to say that "providing answers to the question" what morality is" is one of the tasks descriptive ethics is meant to do. — Isaac

Actually, if you consider the quotes mean to separate the actual morality from studying morality, then you are right. I admit that.

But it is still not clear righting; "what morality is" is a noun, and a function is a verb in the infinite form.

"My function is to argue."
"The function of the police is to keep peace".
etc.

It is incorrect to say,
"my function is argument."
"The function of the police is peace."

Because of the wrong construct, I got confused, and I DISREGARDED the quotation marks. This is my mistake, and I admit to it.

On the other hand, the form of expression was not proper. It gave way to misunderstanding.

I assume 50% of the liability for the misunderstanding, for not noticing the quotes. I attribute fifty percent of the liability for the misunderstanding to the incorrect structure of the sentence by @Galuchat.

I call it a draw.

I don't know why you are defending @Galuchat, @Isaac. Do you have a personal connection to him or her in real life, or outside this forum?

@Galuchat quoted a passage from a different author, @Galuchat admitting to it later, but not attributing the words to the source when he first quoted it. This is punishable offence in academia, but here it's okay; fine. Plagiarism is not a crime, but it is frowned upon, and I just frowned.

I'm pretty sure Galuchat just meant that it is the job of descriptive ethics to produce theories — Isaac

This I agree with. But he said "function", and I assumed he or she was intentionally choosing his or her words.

If you want to forgive that, go ahead. I am on the point of view that "I calls it as I sees it". If people misspoke, it's their job to correct themselves. If they can't, or are oblvious of misspeaking, AND we accept that, then we open the flood gates to communication chaos.

Is that what you advocate, @Isaac? Floods of miscommunication?

The preamble of this site emphasizes the use of proper English. It is not for a pedantic reason. It is for the reason that this is a philosophy site. If we need to keep on substituting things we think others meant in the place of what they actually said, then we create a breeding ground of miscommunication.

Enough said.

I'm pretty sure that's what's meant by being a function of. — Isaac

Isaac, I did not expect this of you.

A function is not a topic of examination. A function is a response by unit to certain stimuli. Both in life, in mathematics, and in theoretics. A topic of examination is not a function. It is a study on how that function works (if the function is the particular topic of the examination).

Please don't do this to me.

Then what's the measure of someone's authority if there is no ultimate good? — Qwex

Oops. I misread you.

Theoretically, there may be an ultimate good. But that has nothing to do with morality. Good, doing good, being good, is not morality. Instead, good, doing good and being good is just that: good, being good and doing good. There is no room for morality in being good.

And being good gives no authority to nobody over nobody else.

Then what's the measure of someone's authority if there is no ultimate good? — Qwex

There is no such measure. If someone claims moral authority over you, kick him or her in the shingles and spit in his or her face. Unless there are witnesses around, because then you can be charged with assault in some jurisdictions.

What does that say about ultimate morality? What is it judged by? — Qwex

It is easiest to judge by moral ultimacy. "I judge you to be morally faulty." Or something to that effect.

You can't prove that you made the right judgment. But judgment on moral grounds needs no proof. It only needs your own conviction that you are right about it.

That's why you are an asshole. (YOU being a general you, not you personally, Qwex. Everyone is an asshole because they take their own moral judging seriously. Whereas it is a mirage, and an unfounded opinion.)

What does that say about ultimate morality? What is it judged by? — Qwex

Well, there you go. There is no ultimo morality. It is a mirage that everyone believes in, and everyone likes to own. I spit on those people. They make me puke. Hypocrites. Liars. Stupid fucking idiots. People who can't think things through.

In other words, each person in the entire human race.

It is far more rational to seek meaning in the possibility of a non-physical life after physical death — CommonSense

You make a good argument for this. How do you suppose we go about researching life after death?

The scriptures are garbage. But what other source of evidence can you get of life after death? For one, there is the argument you made. But for any other? There is none. No witnesses, no first-hand experiences, no visible signs or signs detectable by any means. So how do you go about your quest, how do you suppose to make others join you in this belief, other than it being a possibility?

I disagree, the confusion is about the terms. Atheism is about belief, ones position on a specific belief, agnosticism is about knowledge, what one thinks about what can be known. That whats taught by the experts, if by experts you mean philosophical academia.
A person can be an atheist for a number of reasons, there are different kinds/forms of atheism. What they all have in common, what therefore is most definitive of atheism, is a lack of belief in god/gods. — DingoJones

Bingo, Dingo!

i come back to something to show that you can think of something that does not exist.

Peter is a man. Peter is not Peter.

Therefore Peter does not exist. (Because the only way for Peter to be not Peter is for him to not exist.**)

But you can easily envision Peter. He is a man, with human manly attributes. It is not impossible to imagine what Peter looks like.

----------------

** I had a long and drawn-out argument against @PFHorrest who insisted that this argument is valid. @Banno joined that argument and asked @PFHorrest to abandon the educating me as I was too stupid to learn. Finally I came to the same realization as what PFH was trying to prove to me, and I got to the same result via going down a different avenue of thinking.

As a vegetarian, I am simply not interested in the nutritional value of meat. — unenlightened

Ethics is not a matter of enforcing your morality onto others — Metaphysician Undercover

MU, you're right. Unenlightened, you have the right to hold that opinion.

MU, you can see why moralist vegetarians seem like they try to push their morals on you (and me and on everyone else). Because moralistic vegetarianism is not only a question of morals, but it's also a lifestyle, and in a certain sense, it's a religion. Not a religion, because it lacks god, but a strong enough world view so that people will try to PROSELYTIZE it as if they were fervently religious about not eating meat.

There is nothing you can say to a fanatic to change his ways -- and conversely, a fanatic can say nothing to you to change your ways. But the fanatic will ALWAYS feel morally superior and therefore act more insistent.

Atheists want to insist on a zero-sum dichotomy...either theist or atheist. — Frank Apisa

This may be irksome to you, but to atheists (at least for me) the most irksome opinion is a theist's who says that atheism is just another, different religion.

NO. Religions involve gods, and atheism does not. That's the most basic difference, and that separates the two enough so as to make atheism not a religion.

Both religions and atheism are FAITHS; they are both belief systems. Perhaps this is what gives a rise to the fallacy of equivocation for the religious, when they declare atheism is just another relgion, as to a religious person faith or belief is inseparable from a faith in, or a belief in, the existence of god.

It's amazing how others can express what I say with using 1/4 the amount of words that I use. Congratulations.

Much as how the physical acts in a contact sport like martial arts would be illegal and criminal, if they were done by a mugger without a person's consent, — IvoryBlackBishop

True, and this is also true:

Much as how the physical acts in a contact sport like marital arts would be illegal and criminal, if they were done by a lover without a person's consent,

While I don't condone rape, consentual or not, I condone the use of condoms in a condominium-wide clusterfuck. Consensual rape only occurs in condominant cooperative co-dependent relationships, anyway. With each other, needless to say, though it needels me to say.

my sentiments exactly. That's why I think it's banal to try to bait someone with the same thing you are selling. It is just a self-defeating endeavour, from a marketing point of view.

Not to say it does not happen. It happens on porn sites all over. They must think that people who don't have girflriends must be morons.

This is actually interesting. 1. People think of others who they think are very different from themselves, as morons.
2. People who get something very easily, and see others can't get the same thing, think of those as morons. 3. Everyone thinks they are of above average intelligence.

This puts the stupidity of this particular marketing initiative in perspective. I think of those guys as morons, and they think of me as a moron.

Mutual disparaging and mutual disdain. The thing that propels all social movents in the world.

The application of an approach to realise (actualise) right action is a function of Normative Ethics (the topic of this thread), whereas; "what morality is" is a function of Descriptive Ethics, which is off-topic. — Galuchat

I don't agree with this. What morality is (the essence and the very kernel of attribute or attribute-set what makes an act moral or amoral), is not defined, it's elusive, and it's undefinable. Descriptive ethics may deal with this, but only ineffectually. Morality is therefore not a FUNCTION of descriptive ethics, but a topic of it.

Atheists want to insist on a zero-sum dichotomy...either theist or atheist. — Frank Apisa

I am an atheist, and you described my feelings perfectly, except it's not that I insist on a zero-sum thing, which is only coincidental, although very true.

I agree wholeheartedly with your definition and derivation of agnosticism.

But I further offer why I think someone is either a believer or not a believer in god.

Your description of agnosticism is right on. Everyone is an agnost. WE DON'T KNOW if god exists or not. This is true. Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying or is delusional.

As an atheist, I am also an agnost, as I don't know. It is only a foolish atheist who claims god is impossible to exist. And it is only a foolish theist who claims it is impossible to have the world without a god in it.

So I say we are all agnostic.

But we are not both atheists and theists. Therefore we are each not (not theist) and (not atheist).

Therefore we must be either one, or the other.

I use the law of the excluded middle, not the theory of zero-sum game.

Those who claim they are ambivalent about their beliefs in god, I don't believe. It is fine to know you can see that you can't justify your belief, but you can't both beleive and not believe in a god at the same time and at the same respect.

Therefore I reject that anyone is agnostic in the common speech sense of the word. Everyone is an agnostic if you consiter a gnost a person who knows; but nobody is an agnostic who claims to be undecided in his belief about god.

You are a fucking moron. — DingoJones

I can hardly wait to get back to grade 4 class and write an essay "what I read in my Mid-Winter Break".


Modern Love (of Wisdom)

Here's a word. About beliefs.
Get it from roots, define it ad hoc.

Nobody bends. Nobody gives.
You want to win? Out of luck.

The word grows, the word lives
And all of us care, 'coz we do give a fuck.

Platonism, (...) separate(s) the mathematical or ideal from the physical, — Pfhorrest

I thought that the very idea of Plato's ideals was that they were actually existing, physical things, that embodied the perfect, everlasting, structure of what we only imitate in our building of objects in our lives.

At least this is what I got out of the Republic. I may be wrong.

Where can I do that?

Btw, I didn't ask what people's opinions here are. I was trying to ask if anyone knows of any published debate amongst professional philosophers on the subject.

Well, professional philosophers actually work right across the street from where I work, and sometimes I have gone and bugged them. But since they're rather busy, they're often not so chatty. Unless I sit in on a class, which I could do were I feeling very motivated.

They don't actually charge, and I've yet to have one object to letting me sit in on a class for free. In fact, in one class, the professor was even willing to grade my papers, even though I wasn't paying. (Or rather assign the job to his graduate student.)

I suppose I might also write to David Chalmers to ask if he can point me at any literature. He might actually answer me, since I have a Philosophy degree from MIT and wrote a graduate-level term paper on a published critique of his 2Dism. — Douglas Alan

You actually did, what you deny you did. Assuming we are not professional philosophers, we can only have OPINIONs on what the opinions of professional philosophers are. If we KNEW (beyond mere opinion) what professional philosophers think, we would have the same knowledge as professional philosophers, which would only be possible if we were professional philosophers.

You may have wanted to ask what you iterate in the italic, but you did not try to ask that.

-------

The rest of your post is enviable for me. I wish I had access to philosophy classes and more importantly, debates in words or voicing my opinion in words. I took two philosophy classes, beginners' level, at universities, and got the possible highest mark in both (A+). I attended two series of lectures in beginning levels of classes back in another city, auditing, without paying, both of which ended in a scandal.

I think of myself as a born philosopher, but without any sizeable education in it. My mind is set up for it, but there is no nurturing.

I appreciate other venues are available for me to educate myself: free lectures on the Internet, Youtube videos, Wikipedia. I admit I don't take part in those because I feel lazy and listless. I can't get motivated, and I don't regret that: Life is not to be lived in fear and loathing, life is not to be lived in counting the ways in which I "ought", but instead just do it, go for it, leave the guilt and scolding others throw at me behind. And most importantly, leave the guilt and scolding I, myself, throw at myself, behind.

Your question ought to be addressed to professional philosophers. It is futile to ask dilettantes what a professional thinks. It's a little like "what do you think Jesus thinks" on some certain topic.

Only Jesus knew what he thought, and only a professional philospher is in a postiion to reveal what he or she thinks. As a professional, however, will charge you a fee for this. Otherwise he or she sinks to the level of an amateur.