The argument is the same, you cannot use the principle that things start (Time or spacetime) to prove that things start because your proposition is the same as your claim. Are we arguing about philosophy here or physics?

Your argument is literally when you boil it down to it's simplest form. "Things start because things start."

Why do you still assume time started?

(Principle of Sufficient Reason - everything in time has a cause/reason) That principle exists because of the already in place Dogma that things need a beginning. If we are arguing for something different you cannot use this principle because it is based on the very thing we are arguing about.

"The Universe Cannot Have Existed ‘Forever’" That is the title of the post. You never mentioned time in your preliminary argument. Your argument is all over the place and doesn't really have much logical consistency and I don't think you're understanding my counter arguments.

So now you're confusing me. You were the one who made an argument for a universe not existing forever, I argued against and now you sound like you are arguing from my point while making it look like your argument was my argument?

Wtf? Did you get a notification that I'd replied? Where did my comment go? I just posted it?

"So events beyond spacetime I think are possible - they would just be of a different nature that is not understood by the human race." This makes sense. Although for myself I'm still not convinced there is a start to anything. Beginnings I think are something we as humans project onto the universe because we can verify our own individual non-existence. For example I started in 1993, before 1993 there was no me.

"(which seems to have come about at the Big Bang)" Where did you learn this? See this is what I mean, In order to explain a universe of spacetime with a beginning you've used a something (A wider timeless universe) to explain it. So no nothing. Where is the start supposed to have been?

Let me just explain how your argument is appearing in full.
"The universe cannot have existed forever"
"Why not?"
"Because it started in a wider and timeless universe that does exist forever."

Do you see the issue? Quantum fluctuations, false vacuums, all are states of something and are describing a before the big bang. Spacetime events before the introduction of spacetime supposedly.

We need to also be realistic about what the big bang really was, a great big destruction of evidence. If I drop a nuclear bomb directly onto a house, how would you ever know it was there? If there was a whole established universe here before the big bang would we be able to know that when we can't see anything beyond the cosmic microwave background radiation? So because we have beginnings, because our histories are full of this idea of a creation, our physicist buy into the dogma that our universe must have once been in one of the most illogically possible states. Nothingness. The simplest answer really is that there was something here before the big bang as nothingness is so incomprehensible. Proving the existence of a non existence lack of state of affairs and events is quite possibly the biggest exercise in futility our species has set out on.

Have you considered a cyclical phasic universe?
"An eternal clock. It would never have started keeping time so it can have no current time" But a circular clock can keep going forever.

It should also be known that our current models only accurately predict the perceived beginning of the universe down to a certain size where the big bang is a cloud of super dense and super hot matter and energy and it was like this for awhile before inflation took place. The singularity is just a theory as it has been noted that at a certain density the laws of physics are different, especially during this pre inflation phase.

Time is also relative to where we are. Our 12 hr clock is based on how earth relates to the sun. So our version of time here on earth is also cyclical and phasic. The sun is our clock really.

I don't see how god comes into it really as I don't believe in a creator god.

For me, the problem really rests on whether you can prove nonexistence. See, physicists always get into this weird problem when they try and discuss the beginnings of the universe (Some still prefer the cyclical universe because of this problem) Wherein they always try to explain a nothing with a something. Without a creator god, what can bring about a something from nothing? The god itself would have to be a something and therefore there wasn't nothing, there was god.

There was never a time outside of the beginning of time for there to be no time. Therefore time has always been. Same with the universe, there was never a time where there was a nonexistence and then existence. So whether the universe is cyclical or not, the universe has always been here. It's the only place that can have an always.

You dont need to be so humble my friend, you're asking what I percieve to be great questions and are a great person to have these discussions with.

You aren't inadequate, you're curious, realistic and healthily skeptical! All great traits to have.

Just so you are aware, I find tone is something that doesn't translate well via writing (Cohens preface to logic points to the subtleties in verbal language as being much a part of it as the written word, body language, inflection and so forth.) and I assure you my tone when discussing philosophy with you is only intended to be one of friendliness, patience and authentic passion for the discussion.

Sorry OP for getting so off topic! Hopefully you find our discussion valuable toward the subject. Relational meanings are a very difficult thing to argue for.

We all have choices in every situation. MLK Jr wasnt mainly talking about himself and his own situation but of a situation shared by many of his colour at the time. I'm merely observing his sentiment as still applicable.

I apologise if I have offended you in some way. It's not my intent at all this is just how I write. I want to give as high quality and substantive answers because that is what is required to do philosophy well and I try and aspire to that in my answers. I have told you directly about myself, Aspergers and a 10 year self directed student of philosophy, psychology, mathematics, physics, ethics and logic.

I just want the discussions to keep going. Not here to do competitive debating. Id rather listen learn and share when I get the urge to and hope that I might make some valuable points.

Is where or who an argument comes from that much more than the arguments themselves?

Depends, what do you mean by defective and what do you mean by rebels?

I can see why you observe the ant colony thing, however I think we shouldn't mistake having a unified ego as having a unified controlling hive mind as ants do. Whether or not ants even have an ego is beyond our ken.

Lets bring it down a notch from a unified collective ego and just describe an ethical national egoism.
Now, how familiar are you with the writings of MLK jr? "I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."
Here we have an insight on two different interpretations of the law and how they relate to ethics. First, we have those who hold true the Rule of the Law. By this interpretation, all laws are ethical and to be followed without question. Then we have those who hold true to the Spirit of the Law. This interpretation comes with the belief (which is generally agreed upon in moral philosophy) That which is legal, is not always ethical, and that which is illegal, is not always unethical. So, even rebels can be deemed as moral agents. Without bad, how do you know what good is? Three examples: Rosa Parks illegally refusing to give up her seat for a white man. Was this wrong? Modern example: Man with a chronic illness self medicating with marijuana in a country it is illegal. Is this wrong? Timeless example: A family illegally emigrating to a country to escape war/violence/famine/prejudice and/or persecution. Is this wrong?

Are all criminals, merely that.. criminals? Or are some people moral agents who hold to the spirit of the law and wish to be part of the process for molding and shaping it into something a little bit better? I see moral philosophy as a collaborative effort. We are all molding the field of moral philosophy as we go and we are the models we are observing when we are deliberating on whether or not an action is wrong or not. From the seemingly virtuous person who may give us an insight on what it means to be good, to the morally despicable person who may give us an insight on what it means to be bad.

Now going back to the dialogical self, we also can view ourselves as having internal agents. A theme you will find in TV and Cinema is the Angel and Devil on your shoulder. This kind of simply describes how agents of a dialogical self interact within. Your inner monologue, can be interpreted as different agents of self, some of which have conflicting goals. For example, when a person goes skydiving it is not uncommon for a lot of internal conflict on the way up. Fear and survival instincts telling you to by no means jump out of a moving airplane and your need for thrill, adventure and excitement spurring you on, telling you to just jump. Finally the agent of rationality settles the dispute by reminding the decisive you that you are wearing two parachutes and are with professionals to help keep you safe.

Rounding back to OPs question. If these three different agents I've described, the individual ego, the national ego and the unified human ego are truly identifiable and we as humans have the ability to improve ourselves and contribute towards the collective, (which must also treat us with respect and allow for equal opportunity for all within a democratic society, without sacrificing people for the sake of a fictional higher class. So not fascism, never that) Then I still believe that ethical egoism when applied to the collective ego and even the national ego (so long as your nation doesn't achieve this by needlessly warring or enslaving other countries and peoples and seeks to cultivate outward friendship with other nations in service of the collective ego) can truly be ethical.

However, this is in an ideal world where people can agree on how to ground ethics in the first place.

I don't understand what you mean? I'm new to this forum.

"Presumably the goal of things like mindfulness, or philosophy, or even education in general, is to lead us down the path of managing our own prejudices, even the pre-conscious ones."

I'd agree to this. Does this mean that amongst people who have the opportunity to simply know better, even the pre-conscious discrimination should be treated with the same intolerance as racism?

"A side-point, which is worth mentioning but not debating here, in this topic (IMO :smile: ), is that no-one is in "complete control of their thoughts". Much of our mental activity takes place unconsciously; out of our own awareness. It is not in our control."

Definitely worth mentioning. I'd also point out, that in terms of what we can know is true about ourselves, the only real difference between those with say an OCD or Autism diagnosis: Is that some people have sat in front of a psychiatrist and been open and honest about how they think and feel. People who have not done this are operating under what I call The Fallacy of Normality. Even with an autism diagnosis it can feel as if you are normal whilst everyone else is disordered. I don't think people want to hear the argument that with neurological diversity, it is entirely possible that not even all humans have minds while some do. Some impulsive psychopaths, particularly the rare breed that is born with no Amygdala at all have been theorised to have no internal dialogue, only impulses, no way to differentiate between friend or foe, no self reflection what so ever. However, I think the ethical ramifications for espousing this view are to dangerous to warrant arguing for it really.

Cohen with his modern interpretation of Logic, would probably say that mind logically exists as an abstraction in the very least. The concept definitely exists on paper as a word and exists as a phenomenon. Finding the true sentence meaning of mind however is difficult.

(This is not meant seriously at all, I'm about to get theatrical in order to illustrate a point)

My intuition wants me to slap you in the face for making what I perceive to be a ridiculous statement.

Seriously though, I like the premise and it sounds like it should be true. However, it presents us with a problem. How do we know when we are intuiting something vs when we are just assuming things will work out? Now, I've had successes that have been based off of perceived intuition, only for it to backfire later and be wrong. What if our intuition tells us to do one thing and someone dies or gets hurt as a result? Do Dictators believe in the power of intuition and do they utilise it?

So, what exactly is intuition and how are we defining that?

Oh, as a little side fun fact, the change where psychology became it's own field is so relatively recent that the Boston Public Library hasn't sorted their collection to reflect this. One second you'll be on the philosophy aisle, you go into the next one and there is the logic section, then two whole shelves of psychology, going onto self help, and then ethics. I kind of like it this way though, feels like a joke about the emotional nature of ethics and how it can sometimes be so far removed from logic hahaha!

No problem what so ever. It's refreshing that you're researching. I'll message you some more material on Philosophy of Mind. Suffice it to say, that at one point psychology was once a branch of philosophy before it started to stand out as it's own field. Most decent philosophical writing on Philosophy of mind comes with an understanding of psychology.

I'd say that Wikipedia has some confusing language on this subject so while you are understanding it, do some more research on it to get the correct terminology, I'll message you more on this too.

Now, back to how this relates to ethical egoism as I don't want to veer anymore from OPs question here.
I know we are getting into the risky realms of prescriptive analytical philosophy. Which means I'm probably imagining an ideal world where everything goes right in order to believe this is conceivable. There is a probability(albeit low) that if education were structured in a certain way and really was equally accessible to all, we could theoretically shift focus onto the collective ego by recognising that a collective ego does acknowledge the individual. If I acknowledge that I have a duty toward the collective I am a part of (humanity), I can be aware of what that truly means. So that means I am here for everyone, however I am a part of everyone and must include myself in that group. I must also recognise that as a human I am capable of being a driving or contributing force toward the ideal goals of the collective, because humans are capable of doing this. Which means any self advancement must be in service of this, no more making millions as the goal itself, you make millions to effectively and ethically redistribute in a way that contributes towards meeting the needs of the collective. I must also recognise that I am not the only contribution to my own advancement as I will have advanced because of aid from within the collective. Family, friends, government, school, employer, church, god etc.

This shouldn't be confused with putting humanity at the center of everything either, but that's for a different discussion. I can tell you the ultimate form of ethical egoism, but it's extremely unlikely to ever happen.

Thank you for your comment. You made an excellent point about human individuality and stupidity.

Do you think it would be accurate to say that there is an observable individual ego, national ego and a unified collective ego of humanity?

So for example, the individual ego: Look at the amazing things I’VE done!
National ego: Look at the amazing things OUR COUNTRY has done!
Unified Ego: Look at the amazing things OUR SPECIES has done.

If we accept the existence of a dialogical self, then is the agent of the individual ego the same agent as the collective egos of national and unified? I’d say not, for a human can love themselves but be resentful, indifferent or hateful of their country.

To moderators: Once these questions are answered we will get back to the topic at hand. I believe these points to be relevant but defer to yourselves.

Ethical egoism when applied to the individual in my eyes is not ethical.

Ethical egoism applied to a collective, now that to me sounds like a much better state of affairs.

Ethical egoism as a collective unified human ego seems much more appropriate as it inherently requires you to think of the needs, rights and abilities of those individuals who make up the collective. A collective that focuses on increasing its ability to meet its universal needs (food, housing, education, and healthcare) will do far better than a collective that is focused on helping a subjective elite achieve their individual goals, wants and desires. With the false hopes that the needs of the collective will trickle down from the top from the people when they meet their wants, its easy to identify who from the collective has an individual ego mindset and who has a collective mindset.

First comment since joining. Hope this comment is acceptable.