I have a much briefer argument.
"I am predestined to believe that I have free will!" ( A sign I have placed on my office door, btw.)

Any attempt to argue that I should change my opinion presupposes that I must have the free-will to determine my opinion based on said arguments which automatically invalidates them.

In short, the very act of positing an argument, per se, invalidates the presumption that free will does not exist.

My apologies for the very long delay in reply (too many irons in the proverbial fire). And let me also qualify that I've not read through the discussion yet. But to directly answer your question...

A proper answer would require a proper definition of consciousness which is, of course, problematic. But the feature of consciousness that I can point to which reinforces my thesis is that consciousness is unboundedly self reflective. Consciousness as we consider it for ourselves is transcendent (in a non-metaphysical sense) in that a conscious entity is aware of its own consciousness.

A tiger may be aware of its prey. A tiger may also be aware of itself in relation to its prey (hungry, personal ability, relative size, stalking position etc) but, I would argue, a tiger falls short of consciousness, at the level I am imagining it, in that it is not conscious of its own process of cognition. It cannot ask the question "is it right that I hunt this prey?". The ethics question can only occur with a conscious entity because only a conscious entity can deal with the meta-question that comes with the realization that an ethic (value system applied to choices of behavior) per-supposes a meta-ethic (which ethic is better since the choice of ethics itself is a choice of behavior) because the conscious entity is self reflective.

It is like the fact that given a mirror one sees a copy of an image of the world, but given two mirrors facing each other one sees an infinite regress of recursive images of the world. The existence of consciousness in an entity allows it to explore that infinite regress as far as it chooses (though always to a finite degree of actualization). This is how we distinguish a computer from a conscious entity. Both can contemplate a starting condition, "one". Both can consider an act of iteration, "next". But only a conscious entity can appreciate the futility (sometimes) of the futility of forever chasing that "next' without realizing that the goal (which we symbolize as "infinity") cannot be reached. More to-the-point the conscious entity realizes that futility of this process ("infinity" is to the conscious entity a symbol taking the place of the absent boundary).

The conscious entity can escape the infinite loop trap because the conscious entity can reflect on the task of striving itself.

Okay, so with these reflections on the conscious entity, I argue that any objective model must necessarily fall short of describing the conscious entity because the conscious entity himself by (imperfect but adequate) definition must be able to transcend (again in this non-metaphysical meaning) the model. The conscious entity models itself in some limited by meaningful way.

Bringing to down to a more concrete level, I see a strong analog to the modeling of quantum mechanical systems (my expertise) and modeling conscious entities. To observe a quantum system we realize that the act of observation is of such significance as to undermine the validity of other (complementary/non-compatible) observables. We lose the ability to describe the quantum system in terms of an objective state of all observable properties. Similarly with a conscious entity, to "measure" the state, to observe those variables which affect the conscious entity's behavior requires we interact in a meaningful way, specifically a way meaningful to that conscious entity and thus the entity is perturbed in a way invalidating other complementary/ non-compatible variables.

In a very specific example consider how a questionnaire on one's political "state" can, merely by virtue of rearranging the order in which questions are asked change the outcome of the answers. We can see this empirically via statistical analysis of cases. This means that the act of observing the conscious entity necessarily will affect that entity in ways that, for the very same reason it occurs for quantum systems, invalidates the objective description of said entity.

That's my immediate thoughts on the matter. I'm welcome to feedback to refine my opinion.

There is often an implicit assumption in comparing egoistic vs altruistic orientations. That is that value is a zero sum game. This is partly because one adopts an objective model of value.

So the distinction I was trying to make was between the attitudes:
"I'll act towards my own prosperity, and it's no skin off my nose if others prosper, even if they have it better than me."
vs
"I'll take what I can get and pull down anyone else since where they prosper I lose something and where they are impoverished there's more available for me!"

As to the suicide (deluded into thinking there's a better afterlife) the motivation is selfish. The result is self destructive. The error is due to ignorance and leads the actor away from his goal.

Jumping in way late (yet again). The problem I see with Greta and her like is the false application of our cultural parable of the "Emperor's New Clothes". The candor of an ignorant child can be powerful when it cuts to the heart of a question no-one wants to voice. But on a question that is being debated at high volume and intensity, a child's voice is and can only be a voice of naive ignorance. I'm sorry, but she's being used by her handlers to make emotional pleas in a subject that requires the height of passionless objective analysis.

Do the older reader/posters here recall the Pons-Fleishman debacle over cold fusion? Because the science had such intensely important sociopolitical significance it got emotional and the science suffered. That was minor compared to the current "climate crisis" debate.

No "Gretta" could shed any light on the truth in the debate over cold fusion. I see no merit in dragging the poor girl up in front of audiences for this debate either. It is a bald-faced attempt to distract from actual, scientifically based, debate. "If you disagree you must want to kick poor Gretta in the teeth" or some such horror. She's being used in an abusive way, even if it turns out for the "right reasons".

Personally I don't buy the whole of the asserted claims. I've never seen any legitimate claim with influence in the sociopolitical realm that didn't point out that "well it's bad for some reasons but it's good for others". The complete lack of even hypothetical benefits for the proposed effect make me suspect the motives of those making the claims. "Give me the power to prevent those horrible things that will happen to all of you, no matter who you are or where you live!"

[edit:] "In other words... Give Me Power!!!"
Look closely people!!!

Jeeze that last sentence of mine was almost German in it's length!

Current science suggests that quantum effects are crucial not just to consciousness but all biological systems. — Enrique

Jumping in late here but let me share my thoughts. Your statement is true but only in a less directly useful way to your point. All phenomena is fundamentally quantum mechanical. The classical paradigm is a low resolution description of the underlying quantum nature.

Rather than jumping from "quantum" to "consciousness" I assert it is better to understand the nature of the shift in paradigms one is making when switching from a classical (object with objective properties evolving their states over time) to a quantum (phenomena occurs in ways we can objectively record and the prediction of what is observed has certain maximally specific but still, fundamentally, probabilistic descriptions.) There's the model we use of "reality" and the nature of activity I'm calling "actuality" (parroting my thesis advisor). Things happen, we can sometimes describe it very well as objects with objective states interacting and evolving in time... but sometimes not.

The point here then is that it's not so much that some new exceptional phenomena we call "quantum" is the "secret" behind consciousness. Rather the "pre-quantum" paradigm we use to talk about how things behave in terms of objects and objective models, is insufficient to even define consciousness much less explain it. Consciousness is a behavior that defies objective modeling. That's the premise of poets and theologians and Dr. Penrose and myself. I think it's a good assumption but even if it is wrong there's no harm in using the broader paradigm of description we discover from quantum theory to tackle the questions arising about consciousness because, even if these assumptions of me, Penrose and the rest are wrong, the broader description and method of analysis encompasses the narrower as a subset. If our minds are indeed a clockwork they are still describable in a quantum context given quantum description envelopes and encompasses classical description.

We cannot validate the assumptions, i.e. the first principles, from which we reason, because they cannot be justified. — alcontali

Seeing a live grenade in the room justifies my assumption that a live grenade is in the room. It may be an illusion but I can only act on my perceptions. I deduce that I should get the f*** out of the room as soon as possible.

That's the nature of science. Empirical experience is either consistent with or contrary to our logic tempered world model. When it contradicts we update our assumptions. When it falls in line with the experience we predict we take that as justification (even if only as a pragmatic model element) those assumptions from which we deduce the effects of circumstances and behaviors. I can't see how you could deny that process by which we all carry out our daily lives.

[edited addendum] I concur with your points about incompleteness. But there's a base level of primary logic which is consistent with respect to its own procedures. This is to say there is no internal contradictions.
Alternatives are systems which directly contradict their own rules (like the reasoning of the political left.) Of course we see how limited pure axiomatic logic is when we extend slightly further and construct infinite systems about which we wish to assert and prove/disprove propositions. But in practical terms Godel's incompleteness proof is not terribly meaningful. We don't work with infinite systems we just pretend to by leaving vague our level of finite precision and bounds. We do this specifically to see what we can deduce that's independent of the actual choice of precision and bounds.

When would suicide (self-murder) be anything other than a selfish act? One seeks to escape pain, conceives of death as a perfect liberation from all pain via the actualization of non-being, and then kills oneself without any consideration for the repercussions this will hold for others. Sometimes suicide can be understandable; even then, it still remains a selfish act. — javra

As you later qualified, we should consider cases, but here I would questions some of the nuances of the term "selfish". I agree it is selfish=not thinking of others but that is not the same as selfish=seeking one's own interest above others. I also don't think most suicides are directly escapes from pain per se. Rather they are acts of despair (which may well be induced by sustained pain).

But there is no denying that the suicide, the intentional premeditated suicide who has no belief that he is not actually going to die but rather "cross over into another existence" has placed the value of a future in which he exists below the value of a future where he is absent. Pure selflessness in the second sense. Indeed one often sees in last communications either assertions like "you'll be better off without me" or in the other extreme "life is evil and I'm going to take as many with me as possible when I go".

A "moral value system", what I would call a "code of ethics" receives its meaning from moral judgements. Evaluating behaviour may be done relative to such a system, but we must account for the creation of the system as well. The system, or code of ethics, is created by moral judgements as well. So we have two types of moral judgements, those which create the value structure (general principles), and those judgements of individual human actions (particulars) as good or bad. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree with your first sentence here and in fact exclaim that it is a critical point. However I wouldn't classify it into types in this way. It is here that I see morality as transcendent (in the technical sense rather than mystical metaphysical sense), in that it is reflexive and able to build upon itself more than was there before.

I believe where love comes into play is when along the process of evolution our ancestors developed sufficient neuro-chemical complexity to experience anticipatory emotions such as hope and fear which anticipate, respectively, sensations of pleasure and pain. The sensations are a more direct "ethic" wired into our structure, the emotions provide a built in system of abstraction applying to what we anticipate as good or bad in this immediate sense. Then as we evolved more abstract learning and memory and time sense and we are able to recognize and empathize others of our kind (in the broad sense of other goal seeking agents) we learn to love those agents we identify as kith and kin.

With regard to types:
I would assert that our structure of moral principles are no different (in type) from our structure of causal principles and our world model. Once we act upon a value system we are already in a hypothetical mode. We are extrapolating the effects of our potential actions utilizing an object model of our environment and understanding of behavior utilizing rules of interaction. It is "principles" all the way down insofar as we treat it cognitively.

In other words our value structure is just like, and in fact a part of our reality structure, a dynamic growing system which we continuously update as we experience our environment and categorize into people and things.

Even what we think of as "(particulars)" are abstracted to a sufficient degree that we can't easily categorize them as distinct from generalizations although we can probably order the degree of abstraction. I think you see this in its deficit in autistic children. They are less able to generalize across the changes in their environment. We do this even with what we consider concrete objects like the chair I'm sitting in. I still recognize it as the same chair from day to day even as the scuffs and stains increase and as it changes position and orientation from day today.

I think love is beyond good and evil. To say love is a moral judgment is to exclude, in my opinion, some individuals from love, based on them lacking/possessing moral qualities that either extinguish/evoke love. I don't think love is like that for love, in its most exalted form, the form that is true, is both infinite and unconditional. Being infinite, it loves all; being unconditional it is beyond all judgment, moral or otherwise. — TheMadFool

You are speaking here of Love as an ideal. I am thinking of love as it is practiced by mortal individuals. The narcissist loves those who focus on them because their ethic is whatever promotes their self importance. That might be both friends and enemies. But it isn't infinite and it isn't beyond good and evil.

Let me add also that your description of love is love as you seek to practice it guided by your own ethic. If your description is honest then it would seem you are saying you exalt (figuratively) "Satan and all his works" since you withhold your moral judgement. More likely, I suppose, you see love applied only to the ideals of those individual to which they may be redeemed. But still that is a moral ideal. Or am I mischaracterizing your position?

You are quite right, and that is an error in my suggestion. It would be far more ethical to allow anyone to establish their own gold NUGGIT standard and we allow a market of gold and NUGGIT exchange to set the rates. Only in such a free market would the standard truly represent the virtue of actions represented in the tokens of exchange.

As for global warming, so what? (But that's a debate for a different forum.)

Here is more of my pomposity regarding love.

Again adopting the position of moral agnosticism or rather moral anarchy, wherein each individual has his own moral sense. Take a simplistic example that, for the most part, the majority of living individuals are likely to each have a moral sense that their own individual annihilation would be a bad thing. From an evolutionary perspective this seems a good bet.

As such we should each according to that ethic cooperate to disincentivize killing for personal gain. As a purely pragmatic cooperative agreement we would establish customs to deal with occurrences of homicide. We may even adopt a public assertion of absolute moral judgement even though at its root it there is no external source of this value beyond the beliefs and judgements of the individuals in that society (according to my premise).

So this is, to my thinking, how we generate public statements of formally objective moral values.

But I bring up this example mainly for context. For the less universally held values we can distinguish others we run into along our winding road of existence who more or less share our common values and are more or less capable to cooperate with us to achieve said values. That recognition of kinship of values beyond any arbitrary but objective circumstances leads us to value them in and of themselves. That to me is the root of love in the form of agape.

But I would also argue that the strongest common ethic among us is that moral value of life and procreation. It is bred into us. Or rather it is the fundamental evolutionary function of our moral consciousness. As such our strongest love is directed toward the mate with whom we can promote our own shared values and our prosperity through shared risk and shared labor. Ultimately it is our means to generate new life and new moral actors in the world through procreation and nurturing of our progeny. This gives a form of immortality to our moral will. We instill in our children those values we would see actualized beyond our lifespan.

The self annihilating suicide could be considered as such [selfless, I mean]. But you say "truly" rather when I think you mean "purely". I would like to start another thread relating to this but I've been a bit hyperactive on that front and will wait a bit lest the forum members get sick of me.

Take an anthropological position for a moment. Consider that each individual has their own notion of moral value. It is exactly that value that they do use to justify actions.

Your statement

Passing moral judgement doesn't make it justified.

is your assertion that your moral judgement (specifically as to what is and is not justified) supersedes the subject of your statement.

Now you are not incorrect in that as long as you understand that you're talking about justification to you according to your moral sense. Indeed your moral judgement is the only one you have available and you should use it by the very definition of "should".

But be aware also that other agents out there are likewise judging and justifying their (and my) actions according to their own moral sense and adjudicating what is and is not justified thereby.

This is our state from the start. We become civilized as we integrate into our individual ethos the realization of our social selves. That striving directly toward our goals and judgement of what is good will lead us into conflict. We come to understand that through compromise and cooperation we can ... well you can fill in the rest.

BTW It also sounds like you are conflating moral judgement with moral condemnation. That judgement can likewise be praise. But your point is well taken IMNSHO with regard to the precepts not themselves being judgements but rather statements of values which must be interpreted and applied to specific actions and choices. And they too must be judged as to their worth to those who consider whether to adopt or reject them.

I cannot think of a better definition of pure mathematics than the title of this thread. Pure logic provides a structure to the hypotheticals we might postulate and definitions we might construct.

Logic validates reasoning as a specific epistemology* validates the assumptions from which we reason.

*(I was about to say science or observation but some live in a different epistemological world.)

The way I see it, you’re attempting to structure ALL value relations using a specifically moral valuing system, and finding it insufficient for an accurate understanding of reality as we experience it. That’s to be expected. We use many different value systems in our understanding of reality. Understanding the dimensional relation of potentiality is a matter of understanding how these different value systems relate to our experiences and to each other - and recognising that there is no single value system ‘to rule them all’. — Possibility

But in the end, when we distill all the potential choices we might take at any given moment, we must select one and only one actual behavior. That is the actualization of our entire value system at the time, our ethic. Mind you we all have inconsistencies in our value system. There are unresolved conflicts as there are also uncertainties as to the results of our actions. It is a value system not a singular valuating principle, at least for most of us.

Our morality evolved from and still encompasses the survival/propagation ethic of our animal past. And still those who do not retain some of that don't stick around long enough for us to worry over. But much of what follows builds upon that foundation. Love of truth derives from the pragmatic fact that ignoring the snake doesn't make us immune from its venom. But it can rise in some of us to an ideal in and of itself that we are sometimes willing to take a survival risk to protect.

I agree that we use many different value systems in reality in the sense of valuation of a quantity or ordinals comparisons of qualities. We can rank order fundamental particles by size, we can use point systems to value piece placements in a chess game. But in the end we are each a singular actor choosing one action out of the wealth of possibilities. Even if a particular action is capricious or whimsical it is still the manifestation of a value system.."sometimes you just gotta say 'what the heck!'" There is an implicit good referred to in that statement, some notion of preserving one's sanity or stress relief or recharging of one's mental energy.

A secondary comment more on topic.
I was describing one manifestation of love "at a level of potentiality" namely that manifestation where we love an ill-behaved, weak little "monster" we call a child. I think that plus (for some of us) our value at being needed, at being proven useful to others by the existence of that need, brings us to love children. It is in the nature of making the distinction between child and adult that what we value switches between the potentialities toward the actualities.

I'm not sure what you mean by

Love is pure relation — Possibility

. There may well be pureness in actualization of love but it is also, quite often impure. The mother who backhands her child whom she indeed loves is an example. In such a typical scenario that parent has held onto the delusion that her love is "pure" and thereby turned a blind eye to building resentments and anger which thus grow to a point where they trigger her.

Mind you, we conceptualize ideals as horizons and limit points toward which (or away from which) we orient ourselves. Pure Good vs Pure Evil, Pure Love vs Pure Hate, etc. I assert that these do not exist in absolute purity though we can see extremes so far from the norm that we needn't quibble about the differences from where we stand.

But I also believe thinking in such absolute terms can be counter productive. If we hold say Hitler as the embodiment of pure evil and assume we could never do what he did we forget the fact that Hitler was acting according to the morality he held. He was "protecting" his homeland from what he perceived as a threat in his sick deluded way. But we can be likewise taken with cognitive dissonance in our moral structure, be it the "pure" and visceral rejection of immigrants or our "pure" and visceral rejection of anyone who wants to have a real conversation about the pragmatic need to moderate immigration. We can, if we are not careful channel our inner Hitler.

And, to complete the symmetry, one may take the ideal of pure love so to heart that one may amplify self critique into self loathing and be unable to accept love in any form. My first girlfriend had this in spades. I presume she grew past it as she's now (happily so I presume) married. I only wish I'd not be so immature at the time to have dealt with it better. I only knew that "my love was pure" and its very existence was all that mattered. Now after several decades I recognize that that love, that value, is only meaningful as it places value on my actions. If I fail to act it becomes meaningless.

I think you are hitting the nail on the head here at the end in that the fundamental disagreement between us is here where you say:

but I disagree wholeheartedly that we cannot value other than morally — Possibility

The format here is pretty straightforward. I've made a universally qualified claim, you assert an existential counter example. So now I ask for that example. Give me some examples of values you personally hold which have no moral basis?

Mind you, we may find our disagreement is fundamentally semantic or definitional. I am, ultimately defining morality to be our value system so by my cooked definition I win the literal debate. The big question is whether there is validity and utility in my definition. I think it is a relevant question in this era where we are stepping back from authoritarian ethics. If morality is not defined by the church or the state or the dude with the biggest baseball bat, then what?

To qualify further. As a moral anarchist I am likewise, at the very least, a moral agnostic. I cannot truly know your personal ethic. I can only guess. But, of course, that can be an educated or qualified guess. So too also I speak agnostically of any common or absolute ethic.

I am agnostically amoral in this sense just as I am agnostically atheistic in my faith. But that "amorality" is at the global level, it is exactly what I mean by moral anarchism. I have a personal ethic, and a pretty strong one which is a surprise to me when it has been tested. There are things I won't do and things I won't refuse to do because I think it is wrong/right for me to behave as those choices dictate.

who woulda thunk?

Yes, this is a good point. I don't mean this to be an expression of an ideal to strive toward. It is rather a truth (if I'm correct) to be acknowledged to illuminate a forward path.

As I see it, for example, the tyrant is not wrong in his own ethic, to oppress the public and maintain his power. But I also see that it is most certainly wrong for the oppressed to let his efforts succeed. Then, when we work it all out, the freedom supporting chartered constitutional democracies are best for me and you and most living under its framework for the very pragmatic reason that it is stable and allows (most of) us to maximally actualize our personal paths of virtue. Even the would-be tyrant is better off in such a system trying to talk his way into power rather than fighting his way there. We others who would not be king nor suffer one must thus also be vigilant in preserving and maximizing our own most virtuous mode of living by recognizing and undermining the would-be tyrants or rather the other would-be tyrants as I won't presume to exclude you or I from valuing that ambition.

(I should have been German for my love of three paragraph long sentences!)

[Edit Addendum:] From the position I am taking, when I speak of wrong or right, I'm evaluating that in the ethic of the actor. I will say it is wrong of me to support a tyrant who himself is right in suppressing my opposition of her.

I would add that we often value... morally value since, as I define it, we can't value any other way, the potentialities of others and of circumstances over the realized actualities. This is because, even though the actualities are concrete, we have evolved enough intelligence and wisdom to see how unbounded are the possibilities relative to the immediate actualities. This is why we are able to delay gratification and call such behavior a virtue. We trade the immediate gain for the unbounded future (of course, moderated by our calculus of probabilities and uncertainties).

To call this a ‘value system’ is a reduction of what it means to relate to possibility. Their current behaviour is included in everything they can possibly be. The way I’ve worded it does, however, suggest that the ‘moral judgement’ is not included - it is, but is such a minor factor in ‘what matters’ that its ‘relative value’ is comparatively less than that of ‘everything they can possibly be’.

Think about it in relation to drawing a table: The 3D table is much more than what I can reproduce in even a skilful rendering of a 2D image. If you were not aware that the 2D shape represented a 3D object that existed, then you would see only the 2D shape, and not the table. Likewise, if you were not aware that my expression of 5D value represents 6D meaning, then you would understand it only as 5D value. Language is necessarily a 5D structural relation - it can represent meaning in the same way that the 2D image can represent the 3D table, but the representation is only one aspect of the total information.
10 minutes ago
Reply
Options — Possibility

I disagree. We each value differently and you can value possibilities the same as you can value immediately actualities. Their current behavior is included yes, but everything they can possibly be is not included in their current behavior. Thus you, the wise parent value the possibility, see it as the goodness in them that lets you overlook their current, typically self absorbed behavior. You value, morally value, their potential, and thus you love them in spite of their being, at the moment, less than model citizens of the world.

In all your arguments for your love of your children you are stating exactly why you value them, and I assert that is an expression of your morality. You are not a hedonist annoyed that they interfere with your immediate pleasures. Your ethics looks forward beyond such immediate gratification to see the virtue in your children as what they can (especially with your guidance) become. It is still an actualization of your personal moral values.

Remember that my position is that morality is a personal thing, an individual's value system. You express yours as you express the love of your children as likewise you express your love of all whom you grace with that emotion, and as I posit, with that moral judgement.

I'll reply in the other thread, quoting your last post.

I agree. We should not start from scratch. In my mind we play "salvage" not assuming the traditions of the past are "junk" because we can see they have obviously gotten us this far over a very very long and winding road. But we should, in our repair and rebuilding, not assume any one part is intrinsically "right" just because it's attached to he vehicle that brought us here.

This process of moral transformation is the most delicate of surgeries. It is not to be performed (at the societal level) with a meat clever but rather with the meticulous care that the surgeon's scalpel allows. Cutting out only the malignant or inconveniently inert portions but leaving the vital function intact.

The key heuristic virtue in this endeavor is humility and key sin is hubris.

An ordinal theory of love, not a cardinal one. See the pope for that. :)

And I assert, that for each of your expositions on the permutations of love you are exactly expressing permutations of the values of the lover.
BTW: I love the user name. It reminds me of the sign on my office door which reads:
"I am predestined to believe I have freewill!

TO ALL! Let's split some of this into another thread: Defining Love

In plain English: there is no objective knowledge of subatomic particles -respect some relevant variables. Or there is an alternative theory to quantum mechanics (which I do not know). — David Mo

I would reword this. The knowledge itself IS objective. I.e. I can state that a subatomic particle will have a specific probability of behaving a certain way. But the particle itself is not an object. That's why we can use mathematical symbols to exactly specify our knowledge about the system, and likewise why we cannot use mathematical symbols to exactly specify the "state" of the system itself.

Once we realize that the the representations we use (state vectors) are representations of our knowledge (about the material system) and not representations of the material system directly, then there ceases to be mysteries in such things as "wave function collapse". Of course our knowledge collapses into a new state of knowledge when (and exactly when) we update it with specific observations. This is the proper understanding of the Heisenberg interpretation.

Love is much more than recognising potentiality, and it’s certainly more than ‘moral judgement’. I love my child not because they’re ‘good’, but because everything they can possibly be means more to me than any moral judgement of their behaviour. — Possibility

I argue that your statement here just makes my point. You say you love your child, because... and state what you value namely "everything they can possibly be" over "their [current] behaviour". You have expressed your value system here to explain why you lover your child.

My own experience of paradox was that QM suggests the possibility of an indeterminate reality (e.g. God rolling dice) and my intuition that reality is in fact determinate (e.g. causal). That also relates to my firm belief that free will requires causality, in the sense that I would want something "because" and not as happenstance that randomly comes into existence and is then rationalised post facto. — Benkei

There is enough room for the resolution of your dilemma to assume stochastic causality, namely that one event can influence the probabilities of future events. My free will doesn't make of me a deity. I can choose to act toward some outcome and act to increase its likelihood, even to bring that likelihood to a very close approximation of certainty. But I can never bring the probability to exactly 100% to the last decimal place. It doesn't make me impotent, it just acknowledges my lack of omnipotence.

In short, I think you are invoking a false dichotomy.

And if you reject the premise of an omniscient omnipotent God then there's no worry about who's playing dice. We all are! :) {I also can make a (rather contorted) argument that will also allow you to retain a belief in an omniscient omnipotent deity in light of this seeming paradox, think conspiracy theory.}

Could you describe the paradox you were experiencing? I'd rather not jump to conclusions. — Benkei

Well, it typically manifests in contemplating the EPR experiments where two totally entangled systems, say that are absolutely correlated, are considered and one can suppose that any measurement of any observable of the one copy will predict with certainty the outcome of an as-not-yet-actualized measurement of the other.

An obvious conclusion is then that the other system is in a specific objective state for which all outcomes of any measurement is determined.

Then taking this assumption further and ascribing all uncertainty to our ignorance about the actual state of the system we attempt to describe our knowledge about that state using a probability distribution over the set of possible states.

Such a description we find must obey certain additive relations for the probabilities which in this context we call Bell's inequalities.

Then we go and see that we can violate these inequalities by certain choices of measurement, which tells us we've adopted somewhere an inconsistent set of assumptions.

If you want to experience cognitive dissonance personally, spend a serious amount of time focused on trying to reconcile the empirically verified probability structure of QM with the seemingly obvious and natural derivation of Bell type inequalities.

Here's my take on love. Definitionally "Love is a moral judgement". Understand this in the context of my belief that morality/ethics is an individual's value system. We organize collectively around shared values but we each must literally evaluate the specifics. Even taking an authoritarian... let's put it this way, If God comes down burning bushes and painting with fiery letters in the sky, we each individually must decide if it is right in our own moral judgement to obey the dictates she lays down. Issac decided it was right to sacrifice his son for the sake of obedience to his deity. We can imagine Issac prime deciding that it was just too much, that the dictates of his God were wrong in his own ethic and that he should disobey for the sake of his child.

We each as individuals may take the moral dictates of authorities under consideration but there is always the personal evaluation of the rightness that we conform or otherwise reject those values represented by the source. Some may think about it more than others, some may have a broader experience by which to judge. But we each must judge. This is why I reject any attempt to derive a secular absolute ethic. Rather I would see us study how to reconcile many individuals, each with distinct value systems, as they interact in larger society. Pragmatically speaking, as we consider the moral efficacy of our actions within a society we each must decide how to do the most best good in that context.

So, love being a moral judgement, we can look at what and whom someone loves as knowledge about what they find of moral value. In extreme cases, the masochist loves the sadist, (and the sadist hates the masochist), And each of you can generate enumerable other examples. But the nature of love is to ascribe moral value to what or whom one loves.

We love beauty because it represents health, and physical competence, and that's pro living which most take as a moral good. It's an ethic encoded in our genes since it promotes the prosperity of those genes without which we don't function and thus cannot strive or war or succor the wretched masses or whatever other moral good we might envision.

We love knowledge and truth because it is the gift that keeps on giving. It is the tool by which we can navigate and manipulate our environment to prosper in and of ourselves and thereby act as we value the consequences of our actions.

We love power because without it our will to act is a wish in the wind. Power here doesn't mean mere domination. The power to walk and work, the power to create, the power to effect our world for the good we define by our values is thus good by derivation.

Or... when we stop loving these things, we manifest our underlying ethic of death and we die (occasionally taking out others with us).

I agree with Hoffman in part, excepting that there are implicit assumptions when one uses the term "reality" where he is referring to "Ultimate Reality". Possibly he is referring to the "Actuality" and just not explicitly verbalizing the distinction. "Reality" typically is loaded with the presumption of a state description.

In QM "state vector" IMNSHO causes confusion unless one understands it to refer to the "state of our knowledge about the physical system". Our advisor preferred the term "mode vector" since it describes a mode of system preparation/selection/observation. The "bra's" and "ket's" and wave functions should be understood as symbolic forms pointing to the devices and not the system itself. The underlying mathematical structure represents equivalence and transformation and logical relationship between such devices.

Ah, I could have said that better. The descriptions are physically manifested and those must be objective in and of themselves as records. There's a classical state for a detector memory or the ink on paper where the observation is recorded. The quantum observation specifically amplifies information encoded in the quantum to a classical level where it becomes a repeatedly observable and reproducible registration of the observed values.

In that process of amplification there is a fundamental divide between system and record which invalidates the assumption that the objective representation in the record corresponds to an objective state of the observed system. This amplification is a thermodynamically irreversible process.

Pardon my butting in. I'm new to the forum. I have a list of comments on earlier posts but I'll try [and it seems horribly fail] to be brief. Pardon me (or not as your ethics declare) for hashing old disposed of issues:

From the OP: "A primary problem is moral nihilism and the lack of moral truths. It is not clear there are any moral obligations or moral ought's or moral facts. And when debating things like abortion and assisted suicide you cannot resort to moral facts tor resolve the issue."

Morality (IMNSHO) is, fundamentally, an individual's value system. "What is good" presuppose the answer to the question "Good as valued by whom?". So "Moral Truth" itself presupposes a universal value system which therefore must be held by a universal holder of value. Attempts of secularists or atheists to define absolute value systems from reason and logic will ultimately fail. There are no absolute moral truths in this sense. So I see a range of further possibilities between moral nihilism and an all encompassing moral absolute.

However! Moral relativity (in the same sense of relativity principles of nature and not the moral relativism that has devolved into moral nihilism) can be formulates that establishes common values given the common context of those circumstances that define the human condition. Recognizing that there is still a context is important so as to recognize also that that context is a very stiff frame fixing aspect of moral relativity. One may debate ethics in the context "were we ants and not men" as one may debate the ethics of our striving toward or away from evolving into ants or men. But that ethical debate like all such debates is premise dependent. Each individual has their one moral premises. What is left to be debated is what, given a set of premises are, and what the reality of the contexts allows, is our best guess as to the value of our actions.

In a horribly simplistic example of this point consider a group of philosophers debating ethics but acknowledging that each individual has their own random value system. Rather than debating the virtue of self annihilation they simply wait a few minutes for those who hold that value supreme to suicide, and they can then continue with the opposite premise understood in future debates, without being judgemental on an absolute virtue in their stance. They argue "Those of you left we may presume value for whatever reason value continued existence and thus..."

Second comment: I've noticed the term "antinatalist" bandied about in this an other threads. Firstly I don't see the logic, of the individual holding that value waiting for species suicide rather than, if he is acting consistently on his principles, actively seeking the annihilation of all humanity. I'm not sure if I am understanding the concept correctly, there is one idea of self culling, taking one's on genetic code out of the picture, and there's the culling of others, which is eugenics by whatever means they seek to effect it. I still see it as anti-life since it has the inherent hubris of imposing the advocates' values on the subject of the implied action. I would recognize that the infant may very well grow to hold values far different from those imposed on them by the interventive "antinatalist". No matter how horrific the sufferings of life for an individual, they can at every instance judge the value of enduring that suffering vs escaping it via death and I feel it is presumptuous of me to impose my value system upon them... but of course I'm expressing my values. I state them merely to point out that there is an alternative position and thus a question of consistency in the alternative position.

Like the person trying to convince me that there is no free will, I argue to the moral nihilist that by your attempt to argue you are invoking that which you deny. If it is better to believe in nihilism then there must be a value in believing one system over another, and since your nihilism denies this it must be the wronger belief, or else you must be heretical in your actions within that belief system. Shame on you!!!

Ok, Final Comment: I see examples in this thread of an inconsistent application of an assumption of omniscience in arguing ethics. Specifically we must in our cognition, acknowledge our ignorance as it manifest and our limited power to actualize what we value.

Part and parcel of any value system we apply to our actions (my definition of ethics) are the two factors of knowledge about their effect and power to actualize those effects we deem are of value. These are arguable truths that provide a transcendental quality to the moral question. If one, say as a matter of faith, rejects the total absence of any value system, one must then acknowledge the existence of the utility of acquiring knowledge and power to effect one's choices for the furtherance of whatever value one may discover in the future. This is both the kernel seed of all moral paths and the permanent driving force behind any moral code we may pursue, given our knowledge of our lack of omniscience and our lack of omnipotence.

This is My basis of morality given my rejection of belief in deities or spirits with higher moral authority.
I seek to improve my knowledge of what is right and what that means. I seek to improve my power to effect what I then discover regarding this. I acknowledge that every other willful agent (a.k.a. person) is following their own path along those lines and facilitate those whom I feel are moving, in so far as my current tentative values dictate, in the right direction. All this I implement with appropriate humility and conviction as I can best judge.

So I say "Yes" Morality is Problematic. It is, obviously, the ultimate problem and I feel in the obviousness of our ever present but ever changing ignorance and impotence it is the eternal problem. Those of you looking for purpose in life, can you find any better to pursue? As Linda Hunt asked in "The Year of Living Dangerously" "What then must we do?" (Unfortunately, 42 just doesn't seem to fit as the answer.)

Some may hold that the answer is to ride down the street eliminating anyone they can. In my agnosticism of moral absolutes I acknowledge the legitimacy of their view while I also act upon my own best judgement of morality which is that I should put a bullet in their head as soon as they commit to such an action for the sake of the other seekers whom I value and they would annihilate. But that's just me.