You may be interested in a post I've written here that avoids the dichotomy of objective vs subjective as a basis for knowledge here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1

There's a nice summary from the first reply down. Several people have found this to be worth exploring, as it tackles the issues you're noting in a logical way that still allows us a method of knowledge. I would comment more on your post, but it would only dip into these points.

There are a few arguments for God. Here's a layman's breakdown to read. https://18forty.org/articles/3-arguments-for-gods-existence/

If you want to go more in depth, pick one of the arguments and ask why it works/doesn't work. In general, none of the arguments for God have been proven as true, but thinking about them can give you a better idea of why.

I appreciate the extensive elaboration on the various philosophical problems I mentioned. I won’t delve into them too much, just want to give a thanks for the thought and effort, and say that it was a useful read. — Caerulea-Lawrence

You're welcome! And I got the alert that you replied this time. :D

Despite the apparent success of our intelligence, and the importance of efficiency, I believe focusing on that might conflate cause and effect. We don’t have intelligence because it is ‘necessary’, we have intelligence as it coincides with the survival and procreation in the specific niche we humans fill. 
I’m not saying that as an expert at evolutionary biology, it is just that if you look at your argument, viruses, bacteria, amoeba and parasites achieve the same goals; survival and procreation, as us humans, despite having far, far lower intelligence. In a way, for what they achieve, they are miles ahead of us in efficiency, but they do not beat us at complexity in organization. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Very true. It has been argued that our intelligence evolved out of our social nature. The understanding of complex and dynamic situations has spilled into other areas of our brains allowing us to analyze complex relationships outside of social situations.

The thing is, some people Do fight for the truth, despite the cost to their own lives. Humans as a species is very diverse, and I do not believe cost vs benefit alone fits the diversity we see in paradigms. 
What I believe fits better is that we are born with a predisposition to different paradigms, and are drawn to them like moths to the flame. — Caerulea-Lawrence

I don't disagree with your assessment. I think its an equally valid viewpoint. I could sit here and say, "Yes, but fulfilling that predisposition is for their personal benefit," but that's unnecessary. There is a compulsion among individuals and groups that certain viewpoints of the world this fit our outlook better. And I do believe some outlooks are better by fact, only because they lead to less contradictions and overall benefits for the society. A society that relies on logic, science, and fairness is going to be better off than a society that relies more on wishful thinking, superstition, and abuse of others.

So why do we have different paradigms when you can be perfectly happy in a small hunter-gatherer ‘family’, or in a bigger tribe? And if the explanation is «We developed new paradigms to make sense of problems that no longer made sense with the explanations available», doesn’t the argument itself clash with reality. — Caerulea-Lawrence

I believe that is one reason people change paradigms, but there can be others. I find religion to be an interesting paradigm that can persist in the modern day world. While religions often have logical holes or contradictions purely from a rational viewpoint, as I've mentioned earlier, they provide a sense of community, purpose, and guide that are often invaluable and not easily replaced by abandoning the precepts. Even though the modern day world can explain multiple things in ways that do no require divinity, a divine interpretation of the world can largely co-exist beside it in a truce of sorts if societal rules are established properly. Separation of church and state for example.

I believe the greatest motivator is, to your point, a paradigm that fits within what an individual or group is most inclined towards. As long as reality does not outright contradict the goals of the group, it is acceptable and often times protected from outside criticism.

Seems like we are diverging from the original point you have made about Knowledge and Induction. — Caerulea-Lawrence

No, I believe we are building upon it into the next steps. I wrote a follow up on the third post that includes societal context if you have not read it yet. The original post did not include societal context, as the initial post about the knowledge process of a singular individual is enough to wrap one's head around initially. If you haven't read that section yet, feel free as it might help with the current subject matter we're discussing at this moment. Fantastic points and thought Caerulea!

I'm actually arguing against impossible assumptions. My perception is that there is one large multifaceted assumption that is impossible. — Treatid

If I understand what you're saying, I agree. I once sat down and asked myself, "If this is correct, what would knowing the truth be?" I realized the only way to know truth, which is what is real, would be to have observed and experienced something from all possible perspectives and viewpoints, and an understanding of all conclusions which did not contradict themselves (as well possibly the ones that do!).

It is an absolutely impossible endeavor.

Description has a mechanism. Some things can be described. Some things cannot be described. — Treatid

Also very true. The knowledge system I've proposed here is not limited to linguistic thought. If I had a image, or even a feeling about a specific situation, that can be logged as a memory which then is applied in the future.

For example, the emotion of 'dread'. While we might be able to objectively ascertain that people experiencing dread have some common physical tells, that doesn't mean it describes the individual feeling the person is experiencing. While an individual can know if they're experiencing dread by the emotions they are currently having, being able to know if another person is experiencing that same emotion, despite physical tells, is only available to that specific person. We cannot experience what another experiences.

We can get around this in some ways through creating distinctive and applicable contexts. For example, if someone is blind, we cannot use the word, "See" in the same way. Telling a blind person, "Do you see the point?" will have a difference concept. We don't mean "visually observe", but mean, "Understand".

Two people who lift weights in a gym may have a different conceptions of weak. A person who regularly benches 200 pounds may believe a bench of 150 is weak for them. A person who regularly benches 100 pounds may believe someone who benches 150 is strong relative to them. They generally solve this discrepancy when talking to each other by entering into a common context. For example, the weak person, who is friends with the strong, may make a joke about how the strong person is being a wimp for only lifting 180 pounds that day, encouraging them to lift more. The strong person may yell excitedly and get hyped that the weak person is pushing past what they normally do and lifts 110 pounds that day.

It is widely assumed that it is possible to describe an object.

This is wrong. It is a futile effort. — Treatid

It depends on your definition of 'describe'. If I describe a lemon as a yellowish sour fruit, its a description is it not?" When we say that things are impossible, we have to be very specific as you also realize that language and meaning can be very indefinite unless we make it so.

If we were to remove each relationship to get to the essence of 1... we would eventually find we are left with nothing.

The integer 1 is the set of relationships it has with everything else. The integer 1 outside our universe with no relationships to anything is indistinguishable from nothingness. — Treatid

That is one way to describe it, but I can describe a scenario that counters that. The integer "1" is really a representation of our ability to discretely experience. "One field of grass. One blade of grass. One piece of grass." We can discretely experience anything. Not just parts but everything. The discrete experience of "Existence". A sensation in which there is nothing else but the experience itself. No breakdowns, no parts, no relation. It is within this that relation forms when we create parts. But the experience of the whole, of being itself, is one without relation.

A description is a network of relationships.

The mechanism of language is to build a network of relationships. — Treatid

I agree that between more than one person, a description is a network of relationships. It is because we are establishing a common ground between our individual experiences to establish a base of distinctive knowledge and application (context) that we can reasonably and logically apply with each other.

The typical process for finding the essence of meaning, significance, etc; is to strip away all the miscellaneous chaff until we are left with the essential core of the thing we are examining.

This is why this mistaken assumption is so devastating to the pursuit of knowledge.

Every philosophical, mathematical and physical discussion that tries to get to the core of a matter by stripping away all the extraneous concepts, assumptions and frippery is dooming itself to futility. — Treatid

Who determines what is extraneous, an assumption, or frippery? Between one group of people, certain aspects may be important, while between another group of people, it is not. But what is deemed frippery is dismissed within logical language in both groups A and B, even if they have different views of what is not important. The only hard counters are if there is contradictions that result when each group's contextual distinctive context is applied to reality.

Example: Group A believes that goats can only have brown hair, and white haired 'goats' are sheep.
Group B believes that goats can only have white hair, and that brown haired 'goats' are sheep.

The contradiction comes into play if group A and B meet each other. They can either say the other's contexts are wrong, change their contexts to adapt to each other, or form an entirely new C context that they only use when talking between the groups, but reverting back to A or B when with 'their people'.

What you've missed is that we are the one's who determine was is essential and non-essential in the definitions that we create. So its not impossible to make a description. Its not impossible to create words that strip away other observations until there is a central core. We just have to agree what is essential and non-essential when establishing context and conversation.

The assumption that meaning, significance or what have you, is an essential quality of a thing is the single greatest mistake of modern thought.

The significance of a thing is the sum total of its relationships with everything else. Remove the relationships and you have nothing. — Treatid

The mistake is to think that one group's idea of what is the essential quality of a thing is that it is true. Ignoring the relationships between people, society, and history to create a context is wrong. But it is also wrong to think that we cannot apply such things logically after established. We may have a society that has established that houses made of paper are the strongest houses until another person introduces the concept and application of a brick house. Societal contexts can only reasonably hold if reality does not contradict them.

Remove the relationships, and what you've removed is societal context. But you have not removed yourself or the logic that any memory you apply has the plausibility of being contradicted by reality.

So, well said and stated! I agree with a lot of your initial premises, but I'm tweaking them within the bounds of the theory to demonstrate that we can come to different conclusion that still allow us logical arguments, and 'objective' measurements despite our relationships.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

First Order Logic is not the same thing as you are talking about. — Treatid

Your Princess Bride reference may be correct. My familiarity with first order logic is limited. However, I'm not seeing any specification addressed to counter my point. To your point of Axiomatic mathematics, I've gone over the differences between complete, incomplete, and contradictory systems. Where am I wrong?

I've presented arguments relating specifically to the mathematical specification of Logic. Your counter has been to make statements regarding something that has nothing to do with First Order Logic. — Treatid

This is a fine general statement, but I'm not seeing specifically where my points have not addressed yours.

It isn't that what you are saying is necessarily wrong. It is that it doesn't apply to the specific mathematical artefact that is Formal Logic. — Treatid

You may very well be correct. It would be helpful if you could take a more specific example and really break it down. I get that your approach has been more of a general sense, but I'm not seeing the details specifics that back up your claims. Again, I may be wrong, I'm just not seeing it.

Hello Philosophim.

Can I please have any articles written by accredited scientists that state that death is final, there is nothing afterwards? — Andrew Tyson

I just happened to be reviewing old posts I had visited prior and came across this. Since you didn't reply to my posts specifically or tag me, I never got an alert! But I've seen it now, so I'll reply the best I can.

First, I never said a particular article was published that stated "There is nothing beyond death." I said, "Science has concluded this." Just piece it all together.

First, lets define brain death:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2772257/
"Brain death is defined as the irreversible loss of all functions of the brain, including the brainstem. The three essential findings in brain death are coma, absence of brainstem reflexes, and apnoea. An evaluation for brain death should be considered in patients who have suffered a massive, irreversible brain injury of identifiable cause. A patient determined to be brain dead is legally and clinically dead."

So, we can determine that when the brain is dead, you are dead. So what does the brain do?

Here's a run down of neurochemistry and how thoughts work.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234149/

Basically we've known for years now that the brain is the origin of human thought. You can physically affect the brain to change a person's living experience.

A few examples: Depression medication, psychiatric medication. Diet and blood oxygenation for brain performance. Examples of traumatic brain injury like the story of Pheneus Gage https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1114479/ Or people losing the ability to see color purely through brain damage with perfectly healthy eyes.

The evidence that we are our brain is conclusive. When our brain dies, we are dead. There is no form of logic with ensures that our dopamine, epinephrin, and neurochemical selves persist after we die. There is no evidence that we are anything more than our neurochemical selves. Therefore science has concluded that when we die, we are dead and there is nothing after.

The idea of life extending beyond death is the realm of philosophy, religion, and fantasy. Not science.

“In philosophy propositions never get firmed up into a proof. This is the case, not only because there are no top propositions from which others could be deduced, but because here what is "true" is not a "proposition" at all and also not simply that about which a proposition makes a statement.

Of course. This is the only efficient way to function. Assume I have a car. If I have a car I can drive to the store. Now have I proven how its a car? No, its assumed that its a car. Why? Because I don't need to prove its specifically car and not a truck without a bed before I drive to the store.

Currently the smallest know piece of matter is a quark. Does that mean it actually is? No. And it doesn't matter for the purposes of the rest of our logic.

Logics assumptions start at a point of mutual agreement to consider a specific segment of logic out of the potentially infinite logic behind that assumption. As long as that assumption is not invalidated, it serves as a base for the rest. This is the only way we can think and process the potential infinite.

So this got me thinking, and I could only conclude that what constitutes an 'object' is entirely a matter of language/convention. There's no physical basis for it. I can talk about the blue gutter and that, by convention, identifies an object distinct from the red gutter despite them both being parts of a greater (not separated) pipe. — noAxioms

The physical basis is in application to reality, and seeing whether there is a contradiction. If I call a ball an object, and all the points that define an object are confirmed without contradiction, then it is an object. Language and convention or hypotheses about reality. Application without contradiction is the affirmation of those hypotheses.

If you enjoy epistemology, you may enjoy my paper here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1

There is a summary after my initial posts that does a great job if you wish to check that before reading it.

Glad I can finally get to replying to your post! First, there is a lot to cover, so I'll post a few answers at a time.

Sorites paradox: When does a heap become a heap?

What we have to understand here is that the word 'heap' is a purely cultural word. It was not invented with any particular amount of grains of sand in mind, only a 'feeling'. As long as two people share that feeling when looking at a pile of sand, they'll both agree its a 'heap'. If one person doesn't feel its a heap, there will be disagreement. The disagreement cannot be boiled down to explicit grains of sand however, but the personal applied feeling of the observed mass.

The problem here is attributing more to the identity than it ever had to begin with. So there is no paradox. Its just a word that is based on a cultural agreement of emotion. Not all distinctive knowledge is precise. We just can't expect precise application out of them.

Hume's problem

If you're referring to the problem of induction, the reasoning which leads to the inductive hierarchy takes care of that.

Karl Poppers Falsification This theory of knowledge is consistent with the idea of falsification. For something to be applied, there must be a scenario that we can imagine if it is misapplied.

Falsification is often misunderstood. It does not mean that, "X is false" or "Its possible that X is false." Its "There is a reasonable imagined possibility where X is false, and we can test it." Lets use an example of a unicorn that is falsifiable, vs one that is not falsifiable.

Non-falsifiable Unicorn - This unicorn has magical powers that hide itself from all detection. They will never let themselves be detected by humans, and will always use their magic to hide themselves from any detectable means.

As you can see, we cannot imagine a scenario to test in which this could be false. No matter our detection results, it will always be an affirmation of the unicorn's existence. There is no imagined scenario that we can test in which the unicorns' existence can be false. As I note in the paper, this would be an inapplicable plausibility, which is just one step above an irrational induction in the hierarchy.

Falsifiable Unicorn - This unicorn has magical powers that make it invisible. However, it cannot hide anything else. You can still hear it, it leaves footprints, etc.

As you can see, we can imagine a testable scenario in which this is false. Can we find horse-like footprints that lead to discovering an invisible creature? If we can't, then the claim is false. This is an applicable plausibility, which is essentially a testable hypothesis.

Thomas Kuhn's paradigms To easily sum his point: Science has a paradigm that remains constant before going through a paradigm shift when current theories can’t explain some phenomenon, and someone proposes a new theory.

This is completely consistent with the knowledge theory proposed here. As we create distinctive knowledge and applicably test it, we are constantly looking to see if the application is contradicted by reality. If it is not, then we assume it to be applicable knowledge, and we can build upon it. For example, lets say we applicably know that the Sun rotates around the Earth. After all, its obvious if we look up at the sky. We build a system of astronomy based on this.

One day, a person discovers that the Earth actually rotates around the Sun! This mind blowing discovery upends everything that was built upon the idea that the Sun rotated around the Earth. We have to go back to this new applicable base, and build from here. It doesn't mean that our previous applicable knowledge wasn't knowledge. For at the time, there was no other reasonable conclusion that could be made. But a reasonable conclusion of today may not be a reasonable conclusion of tomorrow. What we applicably know is a tool that could be invalidated with new information, but it does not invalidate the process of creating and applying distinctive knowledge applicably to reality.

Ship of Theseus Theseus buys a ship, and overtime replaces every piece of the ship due to repairs. At this point, is it still Theseus' ship? Ah, a great example! I have written about this before, it was just had to be cut out to make the original post more manageable.

This thought experiment is not so much one of application, but of how we define the ship. If we define his ship purely by its physical makeup, how detailed should that be? Is it based on the atomic makeup? Because that changes as soon as he buys the ship. So it can't be that detailed, even if we do base it purely on the physical makeup. Is it based on the replacement of one plank? Most would say no. So what is it based on?

Cultural ownership. We agree that there are certain identifiers that indicate ownership. Maybe there's a serial number. A great modern day analogy to this are software licenses. When you purchase software, you are copying from a base software implementation. But it doesn't have to remain a copy. As you save or make alterations to it, its still your program because you have a stable identifier, the license key.

The point though, is because it is cultural, there is no hard and fast rule. We can extend the initial Theseus ship example further. Over the years, Theseus replaces all of his parts, but keeps the old parts in a pile. Someone else comes along and uses all of his original parts to build the ship again. Is the ship of the old parts Theseus ship too? Again, this depends on the culture. Are abandoned old parts owned? Is ownership of something based on who builds it? It is how society that defines it that determines the answer.

Plato's allegory of the cave People in a cave look at the shadows on the wall based on a fire they behind them that they cannot see, and believe the shadows are reality. Looking behind reveals a different truth.

I believe this is covered by my remarks on Kuhn's paradigms. If you need me to go further into it, I will.

Brain in a vat Everything you experience seems real, but in reality its all in your head. The reality is you are a brain in a vat and no nothing of reality outside of your thoughts.

As you can start to glean by now, this is also answered by the theory. Applicable knowledge is what cannot be contradicted. The theory that we are brains in a vat is an inapplicable plausibility. It is impossible to apply, therefore an induction very low on the hierarchy. As such, while it is fun to think about, it is no better than an inapplicably plausible unicorn.

I'm not too familiar with the biblical reference, so I'll pass for now. I think we have enough for now to tackle your other points.

And you also seem to 'misunderstand' me to such a degree, that I wonder if you are able to see me as someone who actually does something very similar to you, in a very rigorous manner, but through a process I might call Indiscrete experience/Inferring. — Caerulea-Lawrence

We are two people with different outlooks in the world. Hopefully through discussion we'll reach a common understanding. Please don't take my disagreement or my viewpoint as looking down or disrespecting yours. You are obviously an intelligent person trying to communicate a world view you see very clearly. Most people think it is simple to convey this experience to others until you have to write it down in a cohesive way. Its much more difficult then we expect!

One interesting thing about Jesus and Platon's cave is 'why would they try to change people's minds?' However, when we look at the interactions, at least between Jesus and the Pharisees, it doesn't look like he understood that they didn't 'get it'. If one person went out of the cave, and had their life changed, why 'wouldn't' the second one do it once told about it? But it seems neither of them were aware of the Typical Mind Fallacy

To me, this is more of a question of inferring, than deduction or induction. It is of course possible to induct in these instances, but you need some kind of 'weighing' process. — Caerulea-Lawrence

This is a question that I have addressed in the past, but never tackled in depth because most people never had the understanding of the base discussion to get this far. This is more theory then, "I have the answer," as I believe we would need to test this to confirm it.

The human brain is amazing not just for its intelligence, but its efficiency. A computer can do more processing for example, but its energy cost shoots through the roof. The fact we can think at the level we do without overheating ourselves or using more energy than we do, cannot be beat. Its easy to forget, but we thinking things that had to evolve in a world where danger and scarcity once existed at much greater levels.

This means we are not innately beings who are situated to think deeply about new experiences, or reorganize thought patterns. Doing so is inefficient. Thinking heavily about something takes concentration, energy, and time. Reprocessing your entire structure of thinking is even more difficult. So when we think about human intelligence, we shouldn't that its a font of reason, but a font of efficient processing.

So then, what does an efficient thinker focus on? Getting a result with as little thought as possible. Too little thought, and you fail to understand the situation and make a potentially lethal or tragic mistake. Too much thought, and you spend an inordinate amount of time and energy on a situation and are isolated from social groups, starve, or miss the window to act.

As such, humans are not wired for excellence, or the ideal. We are wires for, "Just enough". As a quick aside, doing more than "Just enough" is an expression of status. To do more than "Just enough" you must have excessive resources, be remarkably more efficient than others, or in a place of immense privilege. To spend time on inefficient matters and demonstrate mastery over them is an expression of one's status in society.

So then back to your point. One person has a paradigm, or set of distinctive and applicable knowledge that works for their life. They come across another person or group of people that a set of distinctive and applicable knowledge that works for their context. Why should one bother with the other paradigm?

My hypothesis is its about cost vs benefit. Maybe paradigm A is more accurate, but less efficient. Despite being more accurate, it doesn't provide much more benefit than paradigm B which is much more efficient. So society uses paradigm A in special circumstances where more accuracy is needed for a substantial benefit, vs usually using paradigm B for most other cases.

Religion is a great example of this. An atheist might have proof that there is no God, and go to a religion to persuade them to abandon their faith. The atheist may have a more accurate and cohesive world view. But what does the religious group gain? As it is now, they have group cohesion, and a community that cares about one another. They have a higher purpose that motivates them to volunteer and try to make the world a better place. The simple view motivates them and helps them when they're sad and down.

If they decided to take the atheistic standpoint, sure, it might be more accurate. But at what cost? A loss of community and purpose? A loss of motivation to care about others? People do not fight for the truth. They fight for the good that a certain viewpoint provides for their lives. If reality lets them have this viewpoint and benefits with few contradictions, why change?

Perhaps this is part of the 'intuition' you speak about. It is a mistake to think that our thought processes are for logic and truth. They are for efficient benefits to ourselves and society. And sometimes we can't voice that, but its there, under the surface.

I'll let this rest for now. What do you think about the topics? is starting to touch the surface of what you're thinking about, or is there another direction we need to go? I appreciate your thoughts.

I see your arguments and they seem well formed given your assumptions. We have enough commonality that we are clearly drawing from similar enough experiences to communicate. — Treatid

Thank you! Yes, I agree that we're both observing and thinking along the same lines, but with different viewpoints.

I can see how it would be annoying if you felt I was derailing your thread with my pet theory. Tell me to bugger off if you feel like it. — Treatid

No, your contribution is more than fine. We are here to explore the topic, and your polite and passionate viewpoint are valuable.

I have some sense of what you are trying to do in presenting a framework of thought and communication. I think others have made similar efforts before and met with lacklustre success because you are (mistakenly) assuming a fundamentally objective universe. — Treatid

Let me clarify. You'll notice in the paper I do not use the words "objectivity" or "subjectivity". We did have another conversation going in another thread, and that might have been crossed here (no worry). Let me see if I can summarize the points again.

--Summary begin
The point is to create a foundation of knowledge. Not a foundation of truth. If you recall I never claim "This is true." Knowledge and truth are not the same thing. Truth is what is. Knowledge is a logical attempt at trying to ascertain that truth, but cannot prove that it does indeed hold the truth. What is more important than subjectivity or objectivity are deduction and induction.

The initial build up is demonstrating that an individual can deduce they discretely experience. What you discretely experience, is what you experience. See a pink elephant in the room? That is what you see. It is not an attempt to claim, "Everybody else see that too." or "It is true that there is an actual pink elephant dancing in my room and causing a mess".

Combined with the ability to discretely experience, we have memory, and the ability to recall that experience, and subdivide discrete experience. So I see an elephant as a whole, but also that its pink as a subdivision. This experience and memory is distinctive knowledge.

But individuals go one step further. We try to apply that memory to a future discrete experience and claim that our memory matches what the new discrete experience is. This is applying our memories and identities. And this application has a chance of being wrong. Recall or reread the goat and sheep example I gave. An attempt to claim that one's distinctive knowledge applies to the new discrete experience is a belief. Distinctive knowledge which can be applied without contradiction is applied knowledge. That which is contradicted is an incorrect belief. That which cannot be quite ascertained, but can be induced based on previous knowledge is an induction, and can be placed in a hierarchy to measure cogency of that induction.
--Summary end

As you see, I don't assume an objective universe. I don't assume that knowledge represents the truth. I note that its a tool, and the most reasonable tool we have to understand the universe. It could very well be that the universe is not objective. There's no reason that the rules of physics need to stay the same tomorrow. But this theory of knowledge does not care. It can adapt to that.

As such, I suggest steering the discussion towards the question of whether it is, in principle, possible for two Cooperative participants to arrive at a definite solution. — Treatid

As long as you understand the former, we can build upon that to discover the later. And your criticism here is on point: I did not address knowledge between more than one person, only knowledge of the self in the original paper due to not wanting to overburden the reader.

My apologies if this will be a little long to get to your point, but its important to understand the whole theory. The identity we'll be using when two people interact with each other is context. You can have distinctive context, and applicable context.

Distinctive context is what each person's distinctive knowledge entails. A botanist and a generalist are walking along in the woods and spy a tree-like plant. The botanist has two competing definitions "treeicus shorticus" and "bushimus maximus". The generalist has the definition of "tree" and "bush". The botanist has very particular essential attributes while the generalist has "trees are tall, bushes are short".

Before any applicable beliefs are made, we can see that their definitions are different. If they do not communicate and agree upon these definitions, they will come to very different applicable conclusions. Both would applicably know the treelike plant as different things, and would be correct within their own distinctive contexts. To agree on application, they both must come to an agreement on distinctive contexts first.

So they hash it out, like we are on the definition of what a discrete experience is. It could be that the botanist and generalist cannot agree. The generalist finds the nitpicky distinction useless to their own life, so just keeps calling it a bush. Perhaps the botanist will relent and note, "Since we're not in a lab, it doesn't matter. Call it a bush if you want. But if you're ever in a botanist convention, remember that its actually "treeicus shorticus" so you don't embarrass yourself. Or maybe the generalist is curious, finds the nitpickiness fascinating, and desires to add the botanists context to their applicable reference material.

It is always a choice. That choice may be based on several things. Time and effort needed to confirm and use the terminology based on the perceived benefit is a high priority for most people. Risk of loss if one uses a poor term is another. But in many cases, terms are going to be very middle ground for most people, and they'll find the most efficient term that works in most general cases.

So then, back to your points.

My disagreement is with your fundamental perception of discreteness.

In the above quote you state that "this" and "that" are requirements for a connection to exist.

I disagree. I think that "this" and "that" are illusions created by the connection. — Treatid

What I am pointing out is primacy. A connection by definition is a relation between two things correct? So one cannot have a connection without the concept of two things. But to your point, can one have two things without the ability to relate? As I noted earlier, to have a discrete experience within existence, one must separate 'this' experience from 'that' sea of existence around us. So as a fundamental, we can say that for one thing to be discretely experienced, it must be in relation to what is not being discretely experienced. I don't know if I would call it a relationship, but I can see that fitting what you're going for.

As to the primacy of how a discrete experience is formed, its not that important to me for the following reason. The process of correct application is still the same. Back to the tree/bush example! No matter what the two agree on in the end, once they do agree on it, they can apply it. If they go with the botanist's definition, they pour over the plant for an hour and determine conclusively that it is in fact a "treeicus shorticus". If they use the generalists' term, they determine conclusively in five seconds that its a bush.

So to with our discussion of detailing discrete experience. If you discretely experience something and feel that every part of that discrete experience is a relationship with another experience, that's fine. That's your definition. Now the question is a matter of application. Can you consistently apply that definition repeatedly as you got about your day with minimal induction? How much time does it take you to applicably know it? How useful is it to you in relation to viewing something as an object? Is your definition more useful than others, and are others willing to enter into your distinctive context?

Its a tool, not an expression of truth. Tools are judged on their simplicity, usefulness, consistency, and ease of use. My point will be that your use of relationships comes in handy in particular contexts where the identifies essential properties are the relationships. We may have a general wrench, but maybe we need a slightly altered wrench for a different job.

It is the relationships between 'Left' and 'Right' that define each of them. Similarly with 'Hot' and 'Cold', 'Tall' and 'Short', .... — Treatid

In this instance, these discrete experiences cannot be divorced from relationships, as they are the discrete experiences of relationships themselves.

But if we think in terms of abstracts like "The number one" which is merely the abstract idea of what a discrete experience is, does bringing relationships into it help us with math? Not so much. So here it seems unimportant, and we don't bring that property in as it doesn't serve us in our applicable needs.

What I'm interested in is whether you can imagine a relationship centred reality as distinct from your current perception of an object centred reality? — Treatid

As you can see, yes. That is one of many contexts we can think in.

For my part, I can see your assumption of the primacy of objects over relationships. I'm not in doubt about what it is you believe. I disagree with it. — Treatid

Hopefully you'll see now my point was more that we need the fundamental ability to create a 'this' and a 'that'. We're nitpicking on whether this is a fundamental relationship, or a fundamental object that becomes a relationship, but we don't seem to be disagreeing on the fundamentality of discrete experience and its application. (Feel free to disagree :) )

We both agree that we directly experience Sensory Data. You perceive that Sensory Data as having been caused by objects (hence you have indirect perception of objects). I perceive Sensory Data and more Sensory Data. — Treatid

No, I actually don't claim that in the paper. You probably understand this now after reading the above.

What reason can you give me to believe your indirect perception of objects is an accurate representation of reality? — Treatid

Like any application of distinctive knowledge, I must demonstrate that its application is not contradicted by reality. So if I believe that eating fresh apples will not kill me, and I eat fresh apples without dying, then I applicably know eating fresh applies will not kill me. Feel free to create a set of definitions that do not require there to be objects. Nothing is stopping you distinctively. The question will be its applicability. Can you create a system that is easy to understand, apply, consistent, and helps people better understand and interact with the world then a system that relies more on objects? Is your system of relations always good, or is it only sometimes good based on context?

My point is that we can invent an infinite number of distinctive ways of viewing and analyzing the world. The proof comes in its application. I hope this lengthy reply answered your questions and added a little more clarity to my points. Let me know what you think!

When I talk about change in context, I dont mean going from ‘its raining’ to ‘its not raining’, I mean going from subject to predicate and back to subject again. in a logical
proposition. — Joshs

Again, there is nothing in logic that does not let you do this. Logic is a tool. You can be meticulous with it, or generic. Noting that people are not very meticulous in their logic does not mean the tool can't be meticulous. I understand your point, because many people do not use logic in such a way. But it doesn't mean it can't.

The problem with formal logic, or I should say its limitation, is that it ignores changes in contextual sense. — Joshs

No, that's just a poor use of logic. A good use of logic would be to include all the variables involved, and that includes the particular context. As a very basic example, we can say the context of whether its raining or not today. If its raining, C follows. If its not, D follows. Take that to any situation. If you introduce a new variable stating, "What about X context?" then you introduce that context as a particular variable within logical thought.

The more important limitation is that, while we build our computers to calculate by logical symbol manipulation, this doesn’t mean that this is the fundamental or most useful way that we think. — Joshs

Logic is a tool, and a usually inefficient one. Logic is a careful examination with a solid and certain process. Its usually very slow, requires sometimes intense thought, and therefore terrible for situations that need snap judgements. As such, we tend to generalize logic, like create principles that don't consider context. Very useful to do so, but takes short cuts for efficiency and loses accuracy in application when context changes.

Its only proven as long as "There are some lemons that are not yellow" is not introduced.
— Philosophim

What do you mean "introduced"?

Are you saying there is a second round of axiomatic systems where we introduce more axioms? — Treatid

In an axiomatic system, premises are generally introduced one at a time. So if in the system you had, "All lemons are yellow," there is no contradiction until you put in, "Some lemons aren't yellow." Think of the following.

1. All lemons are yellow.
2. All limes are green.
3. A blue lemon was found today.

At this point the Axiomatic system might have been complete yesterday, but is not incomplete today. If you want to call these two different systems, that's also fine. In either way we label it, a separate system, or a system in which a new property is introduced, the end system ends in a contradiction. This does not contradict the rules of Axiomatic systems, it just shows this particular system ended in a contradiction.

Since I've seen you understand and use effective arguments, this non-statement tells me that your prejudices have come up against a set of facts that don't fit. In a panic, you are re-iterating your prejudices rather than forming an argument which would require examining those prejudices against the new evidence; a process that you can already see will be deeply uncomfortable for your prejudices. — Treatid

Sure, that definitely happens over the internet. I can tell you that in this case its most likely a misunderstanding between us. I'm genuinely engaging you, and if I'm wrong, I don't mind saying so. Keep pointing out if you think I'm mislabeling, misusing, or misunderstanding the points. I can only ask at this point to give me the benefit of the doubt, and I will do the same to you.

Since Axiomatic Mathematics has been hoisted by its own petard in the form of The Principle of Explosion; — Treatid

I have still not seen you prove this point.

This story about mimicry has one particular feature I'd like to underline: Logic isn't necessary. — Treatid

No, its not necessary for survival. Several creatures have no system of logic. But, logic still applies in terms of survival. If a creature behaves illogically, or contrary to a logical outcome of reality, it many times may not survive. Logic is incredibly useful to assess a situation accurately as intelligent develops. Air conditioning was not built by mimicry or instinct. The internet we now use to communicate with each other was built on logic, not intuition.

Without logic, you have brute force evolution. Throw 1000 random creature behaviors at a situation, and what lives will continue to reproduce. Logic is a tool that increases the survival rate of whatever animal uses it. Logic is simply the understanding that step A necessarily leads to step B, and that two things cannot co-exist at once. Though it is simple, like the concept of the number 1, it can be built into something monumental.

If you've ever met an accountant, or worse, an economist you will know that they confidently perform the prescribed tasks with little comprehension of the tools and processes. — Treatid

Logic does not require a full understanding of the underlying process. Assume A. If A is true... is all you need. We're not asking where A came from. The structure of A, its history, etc. We're assuming A exists. In this instance, "A program called Excel exists with these functions. If I use function B, I get output C." While one could operate Excel at an extremely basic level by someone giving them formulas and telling them to just plug the same numbers in again and again, logically they know using a different formula will lead to an unknown result. Our use of logic does not need to build Mt Olympus, sometimes its used to build a card board box house.

Networks of relationships do not contradict each other simply through the nature of their shape. — Treatid

But they can.

A. All of my networked people are friends to me.
B. All friends are good people.
C. Today one of my networked people stole money from my bank account.

As you can see, like the lemon example I gave earlier, we run into a contradiction. Does that destroy the idea of a network as a system, or just destroy my past outlook of this current network? Again to my point that I'm not seeing Axiomatic Logic being invalidated at this time.

If you abstract away your existence there is nothing left. — Treatid

Of course there are things left. The world will go on. My friends and family will still be alive. The birds that chirp in the morning will still be. In fighting over politics will continue. Taxes will still be paid. :D

Among these relationships is the relationship between your existence and everything you do and experience.

If you try to sever this relationship, you cease to exist. — Treatid

Sure, no argument there. I'm just not seeing how relationships is an invalidation of proofs. It seems rather easy to prove the importance of relationships doesn't it? Its just not the foundation as I mentioned earlier. To even think of a relationship, you must think discretely as in "This" vs "That". I haven't seen you attempt to counter that at this point, and it may be because its unimportant to your point, I'm not sure. Let me know what you think.

I think thats merely redefining principle. If someone can steal and improve their already good life then to do so in a way that allows them to avoid punishment must be a good for them. — Ourora Aureis

Generally principles are thought of as guidelines that should be applied in different circumstances. "You should not murder" is a principle. Principles, if taken without exception, usually have difficulty with contexts where perhaps the principle may not apply.

Now we could go through all contexts and determine the best outcome, but that's not really a principle, but a measure of what to do in that particular situation.

Do you believe beautiful people are inherently good people compared to less beautiful/deformed people?
— Philosophim

I certainly seem to treat them as such. Why'd you introduce the word inherent? — fdrake

I think its equivalent to what the OP is asking.

Perhaps instead of experience, the term 'context' would be better?

So one should not steal if you have plenty of resources, but stealing food is acceptable if you have no resources, all other options have been exhausted, and you're about to die of hunger.

And I certainly behave more favourably to those I deem beautiful. — fdrake

You can behave favorably to evil people. Our behavior towards a person is not an indicator of their inherent good or evil. Do you believe beautiful people are inherently good people compared to less beautiful/deformed people?

Beauty doesn't equate to goodness. But beauty does equate to how much someone wants to associate with you. You can be a good person who society wants nothing to do with.

Glad to see your around still! There's a bit to answer on that post, so I'll need to spend some time gathering answers to your questions. I should have time to post by this weekend.

Could you define 'distinct' for me, please? — Treatid

Something distinct is a discrete experience clearly defined. There is nothing wrong with seeing connections. But connections come from blending discrete experiences together, and are themselves distinctions.

You cannot say, "This and that are connected" without both "this" and "that". What we tend to do in connections is have less emphasis on the individual parts, and instead focus on the new distinction that's formed. A very simple example of this is addition in math. You take two 'ones', and create a new connection or group that we call 'two'. When the connections are small and easily identifiable, we more clearly see the parts that make the connections. When they are numerous and complex like a clock, we may ignore or even hide the complexity underneath to focus on the subject of telling time.

But the ability to focus on the connection and de-emphasize the parts, does not negate the parts themselves.

The idea of 'hard distinction' makes no sense to me. The things we experience are part of the universe. Saying they are not connected appears counter-factual to me. — Treatid

All things can be connected based on our ability to group things together. But they also don't have to be. Connections are built from distinctions, and are simply a complex distinction itself. Skateboard, wheel, plastic, molecule. These things are all parts of a skateboard that are connected, but at any moment, we could disconnect them if we so chose.

Your use of 'distinct' gives me the impression that you think we can chop off bits of the universe and consider them in isolation. — Treatid

Yes. Read the words in this sentence. Think about each word. Now each letter. Now each pixel. Now as a group. You can part and parcel the universe as you see fit. That is our power as observant beings, the ability to discretely experience.

The idea of 'hard distinction' makes no sense to me. — Treatid

A hard distinction is something we can create in our experience. It depends on how you're defining the phrase, 'hard distinction'. If you create a definition that's impossible to experience, then of course the phrase is useless. If you create a definition that is possible to experience, then it is useful.

So, I see difference and connection as intimately connected concepts that cannot be separated. Each one is part of and requires the other. — Treatid

No argument from me. To know that something is 'different' it must be evaluated in relation to 'something else'. We create discrete experiences, and compare them to one another. Thus we have the ability to both create discrete experiences, and relate discrete experiences.

Beyond this, I think that every concept we hold is defined by its connection to all the other concepts. The connections a concept has IS the concept.

Remove those connections to other concepts and you are left with nothing. — Treatid

To have a discrete experience, you must experience like being in a sea. To take a discrete is to remove the surrounding existence from the discrete. Then, we can observe how the discrete behaves within the rest of existence. Adding more discrete existences allows us to observe them in relation to each other in a more specified way. Greater discrete existences up to a point help us navigate the world in a way that allows us to live. "This" is food. "That" will kill you. And so on.

As it stands, your references to distinctions run counter to my direct experience. — Treatid

Do they still at this point?

I think you have a severe misunderstanding.
— Philosophim

Right back at ya, big fellow (in a friendly, affectionate and non-gender assumptive manner). — Treatid

Ha ha! All good! Please assume the same attitude from my end. A good discussion is what these places are for. I respect your view points and approach.

These axioms can be anything. Absolutely anything. There is no constraint on what axioms you choose. — Treatid

True, but that doesn't mean they cannot later be determined to be true or false within the system. A consistent and complete system is when every statement is proven true or false from the systems axioms without contradiction. So you can introduce an axiom that states, "The moon is made of green cheese," but to be consistent and complete, it can't be contradicted down the road with other information.

Proof = "consistent within an axiomatic system"

Your belief in the reality or otherwise of a given axiom is irrelevant. If "All lemons are yellow" is a statement within a consistent axiomatic system then "All lemons are yellow" is proven (within that axiomatic system). — Treatid

Its only proven as long as "There are some lemons that are not yellow" is not introduced. Once you introduce a contradiction, then the system is no longer consistent or complete. But finding a contradiction within a specific axiomatic process does not invalidate the system of axiomatic mathematics.

It is almost always impossible to show that an axiomatic system is consistent. — Treatid

This is a bold claim. Lets say this is true. Does the fact there are more inconsistencies negate the value of those systems which are consistent? For example, 2+2= ? will have far more many wrong answers than right answers. Does that invalidate math?

One of the problems is that axiomatic systems actually include all statements that are valid according to the rules of the axioms. Some of these statements cannot be found by iterating on existing statements. — Treatid

Then it is not a complete system. Axioms that cannot be determined as true or false from other axioms on the system are called independent axioms. An entire system of independent axioms is considered an independent system (and probably not very useful)

Most significant axiomatic proofs rely on axiomatic systems that cannot be proven to be consistent. They are believed to be consistent. — Treatid

But they are not consistent. That's induction, not deduction.

What is blue? Define blue. Is blue the same category as yellow? can a lemon be both blue and yellow? — Treatid

This is an issue of clearly defining your definitions based on context. We are the one's who determine such definitions. But clearly mark them out, and you can use them objectively.

Are all lemons identical? How different can one lemon be from another lemon and still be a lemon? — Treatid

Once again, that's up to us as definers to set the parameters of the word we're using. Once you do that, you have what you need.

I do not know how I missed your post again. If you're still around, let me know, I will reply to your points!

I've read through the thread. There are some darned good points being made. — Treatid

I appreciate the read and compliment!

Let me address the topic that you pointed out directly and accurately.

There are infinite (unlimited) possible categorisations — Treatid

True. We can create infinite distinctive knowledge. But can we accurately apply them? And if we do, are they useful to us for that particular situation? Taken within the solo context of the paper, this is a description, not a criticism. As long as we can applicably know whatever categorization we create, its objective knowledge.

However, if we include the context of one other person, we suddenly have new challenges. This original post did not address how social context works, as it was a long enough paper as it is. I will post the rest for you in the follow up in the "Reserved for further posts here", as I wasn't sure if readers were going to get that far into it.

Summary:

Social communication requires context, both distinctively, and applicably. The first thing which must be established before communication can occur is to find an agreement of essential properties within a definition. The essential properties of a 'tree' for a casual person may be very different than for a botanist for example. Once the properties are agreed upon by both parties, then applicable knowledge can begin.

So: A tall bush may be applicably known as a 'tall tree' by a group of average people, but that same tall tree is applicably known as "Bushicus tallimax" by botanists.

How do we agree what definitions to use? Through a combination of several factors.

1. Efficiency (Energy and time spent per result)
2. Effectiveness (How useful is it to us. Why do I care that that tree is a bush if I'm not a botanist?)
3. Danger in failure or loss of success (That bear is not friendly. I failed to identify this particular tree can cure cancer)

And of course, once you have established contextual definitions, the group could try for applicable knowledge or use the inductive hierarchy in application. I'm sure you can come up with more on your own as you seem to understand the underlying issues of the topic well. If you read the second part and feel like that did not adequately answer your points, please point them out again and I will address them.

Here we have the contradicting statements "All lemons are yellow" and "Not all lemons are yellow" proving that "unicorns exist". — Treatid

I think you have a severe misunderstanding. First, an assumption that two competing premises are true does not prove they are both true. In this case its clear that all lemons are not yellow is true, while "All lemons are yellow," is false.

Let me indicate what the Principle of Explosions is really indicating.

Lets say that I have the following proof.

A = A
A -> B
B -> C

If all are true, then this is proven. However, lets say that we discover that A -> !B. We now have a contradiction that invalidates this particular proof. But that does not invalidate logic.

To invalidate logic, we would need to discover that both A -> B and A -> !B and both are true. Again, not in the metaphorical sense but in the literal. At that, a fundamental of logic, that something cannot be proven to be both true and false at the same time would be invalid and result in the Principle of Explosion you're talking about.

1. We know that "Not all lemons are yellow", as it has been assumed to be true.
2. We know that "All lemons are yellow", as it has been assumed to be true. — Wikipedia

To your example, you should not be able to see why this doesn't cause an Explosion. The assumption of truth is not the proof of truth. Often times in logic, assumptions are made and later proven false. This is actually a logical method of proof called Reductio Ad Absurdum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

To prove a contradiction exists, you must demonstrate that something both literally does, and does not exist at the same time. So far, no one has been able to demonstrate this within Axiomatic mathematics, so the logic stands.

You ask me to point to the specific inconsistency that destroys Axiomatic Mathematics...

You test my ability to take all posts in good faith. — Treatid

My intention was only to get clarification. A question asking you to clarify your stance is what good faith argumentation does. This helped me to see what you were thinking about, and allowed me to address the argument to your premises, and not my own. I wanted to avoid a "Straw man fallacy", or an instance in which a person invents or points to a premise the OP is not talking about, and makes the argument about that.

If his belief system was correct (and I don't know), he had nothing to be afraid of because he was just about to start the journey of eternity with a purportedly loving God. I personally feel that if his belief system was wrong — Andrew Tyson

You are correct. Modern day science has shown us without a doubt that death is final. Some despair, but you shouldn't. It should motivate you. Understand this is it. No second chances. Live your life as you want now, because you never will get another chance. Maybe we would have more people motivated to go into the sciences to extend life span if we all accepted the reality of death. Maybe more people would chase their dreams.

To me, it is a tragedy for most people to be deluded into thinking there's something after this is over.

The Principle of Explosion is why inconsistency is a problem. — Treatid

Sure, but you never pointed out the inconsistency that destroys Axiomatic math.

If a contradiction were to appear inside the universe then, logically, the universe must disappear in a puff of logic.

According to Axiomatic Mathematics, there are many inconsistent systems. These systems exist within the universe. Why hasn't the universe poofed out of existence. — Treatid

True. Do you have a specific example of when something both existed and did not exist at the same time in the universe? And I don't mean metaphysically, but in reality.

Second, you'll need to point out a contradiction in math, and prove that it necessarily represents the universe accurately. A claim of 'inconsistent systems' is not enough.

The separation between Axiomatic (or Logical) systems doesn't exist. — Treatid

Correct. Logical systems are built upon smaller proven parts.

Axiomatic mathematics must have distinctions between systems in order to exist. But the boundaries can't be seen. There is nothing to measure. They are the poster child of belief without evidence. — Treatid

I don't understand what you're stating here. Could you give an example?

If everything is connected then Logic, Axiomatic Mathematics and the whole universe are inconsistent. By the rules of Axiomatic Mathematics inconsistent systems have no information content.

Axiomatic Mathematics needs a distinction between systems to exist. — Treatid

How is everything inconsistent? I also don't understand your claim that axiomatic mathematics needs a distinction between its 'systems'. (What's a system?)

Logic is a theory of arguments. It (tries to) describe how a form of communication works. — Treatid

No, logic is a combination of proofs that have not been reasonably countered. Like I mentioned earlier, you cannot have an object 'A' both exist and not exist at the same time. A != A is proven to be wrong.

Your existence encompasses the whole of your existence. All your experiences are part and parcel of your existence. You are as certain of your direct experiences as you are of anything else. — Treatid

No disagreement here.

Logic never persuaded you that you feel pain and pleasure. You feel pain and pleasure because... you do. — Treatid

No, but logic can give something more reasonable to stand on then a feeling of certainty.

We can (indeed, must) use our personal experiences as the solid foundation upon which to build... everything. — Treatid

We only need personal experiences if we only trust ourselves. If we trust proven systems, then no.

Solipsism says we cannot know anything with certainty except the self.

This isn't wrong - but the self includes everything you ever experience. When you stub your toe on a table; that experience is certain. Definite. — Treatid

Yes, the experience of existing is certain as you experience it. But whether that experience correctly interprets how you exist in relation to others is not. Descartes evil demon covers this. Or the brain in a vat argument. Just because you believe strongly that you've stubbed your toe is not a reason alone to conclude you stubbed your toe. That's just an emotional conviction.

A physical sentence isn't wrong. It isn't right either. These words don't have any meaning. They are just shapes in the universe. — Treatid

No, they have meaning by the concepts they represent. And those concepts can be right or wrong depending on if they are in accordance with reality, or contradict reality.

You, personally, decide how you will respond to what you read. — Treatid

Sure. But this doesn't prove that my belief of certainty matches reality. You're equating emotions and beliefs with logic. They are not the same.

Right and wrong (truth and false) are entirely subjective opinions determined by each individual. — Treatid

It depends on the context. If I want to make up names for things I can. If I want to say that a rock hurtling through the air is about to hit me in the head, I am wrong.

I highly encourage you to read the work I linked you in the last post. You're the kind of person who can think along those lines, and I think it would be very valuable to help you sort out the thoughts your currently going through.

From what you said (in the above quote), you are implying that I would be equally morally responsible for the five deaths as the one; and thusly it wouldn't make sense to, then, let the five die at the expense of the one. — Bob Ross

No, I wasn't trying to imply that you had responsibility. I was asking what you felt would be right.

In the trolley dilemma, I am not morally responsible — Bob Ross

I think I see our difference here. I don't hold morality is a responsibility. I hold it as a choice. So for you, its not about choice, but responsibility. Thus you can be absolved of responsibility in certain situations no matter the outcome. The 'fate' part was more about outcome, so we don't need to focus on it.

I view morality as a matter of preferable outcomes based upon our choices. Responsibility doesn't enter into the equation for me. Mostly because I don't know what would be dictating responsibilities, and it seems to add a layer of complexity on a topic that is already complex enough. So to that point, what is dictating moral responsibilities? How do we rationally determine what we are, and are not responsible for?

Walk away. I cannot sacrifice innocent human beings to save other innocent human beings: the consequences are not what dictates what is right or wrong but, rather, the act—and the act is immoral. — Bob Ross

You didn't strike me as one to believe in fate. So because one innocent person would die if you saved five people, you would let the five people die because other forces that are already in motion would lead to their death. If that is your answer, how do you arrive at that decision?

I no longer see suicide as a rare fact... Their rates are higher than ever. — javi2541997

Its now about what you think, its about what is.

https://ourworldindata.org/suicide

"For some countries in Southern Africa and Eastern Europe, the estimated rates of suicide are high, with over 15 annual deaths per 100,000 people.

Meanwhile, for other countries in Europe, South America, and Asia, the estimated rates of suicide are lower, with under 10 annual deaths per 100,000 people."

So lets split the difference on this and go 13/100,000 people. That's a suicide rate each year of .013%
Peruse the sight for more data breakdowns if you want. But it is a fact that suicide is rare.

This is the point I was trying to get to. For you, if the case of human agency is a non-factor, you'll pull to save the greatest number. But you favor human agency over the the greatest number. I also don't disagree with this.

For me, it is that I cannot intentionally kill an innocent person (where it is implied it is against their will) period. — Bob Ross

Interesting. So if we have the trolley problem, both sides have innocent people, and both sides plead for you to save them by throwing the switch or walk away, what would you do?

Why is it rare? I think you are misunderstanding "should" with wish. — javi2541997

By statistics. If you really think you should die, you attempt to commit suicide. Most people do not attempt to commit suicide who are healthy. Therefore it is rare by fact. This is incontrovertible.

Eternal life is not scary at all. I view it like a child who is afraid of becoming an adult. They simply don't understand what its like. But its rare that anyone in any stage of their healthy life thinks they should die. So it would be 1000 to 100,000,000 years from now.

I'm about to come in hot. I can do this because you are making clear statements of position that I can engage with.

Thank you for that. — Treatid

No problem! This is the place where you can. Please enjoy thinking and challenging to your hearts content.

It is impossible to prove anything beyond all doubt (except, perhaps, your own existence is self-evident to you). — Treatid

I doubt that. And if doubt had any weight on its own, your statement would crumble. Doubt alone means nothing. I can doubt anything I want. What matters is "Reasonable doubt". If I say, "I doubt that unicorn's aren't real," someone can ask me, "What's your evidence for such a doubt?" If I say, "Because I want there to be unicorns," my doubt is just a feeling and can be dismissed.

Doubt is never the standard by which objectivity is determined. After all, people doubt that the world is a sphere. Doubts which can be tested, are falsifiable, and have good reasoning behind them can be considered as viable challenges to established claims. Anything else can easily be discarded.

There are no (logical or mathematical) proofs. — Treatid

Can you prove this? You're running into a classic conundrum of, "There is no reality/certainty etc." Your own statements fall into your own accusation. In which case, why should your statements hold any weight?

Look at it this way.

Option 1: There is not objectivity, so anything goes.
Option 2: There is objectivity, so not everything goes.

If you pick option 1 and I pick option 2, I don't have to accept your premises, while you have to accept that its fine for me to hold option 2. If you insist that I'm wrong, then you've countered your own argument. You're claiming, "Option 1 is objectively true, while option 2 is objectively false." Or better/relative comparative value that is more than an opinion. Option 1 is rationally worthless.

So while I could demonstrate a logical or mathematical proof, I'm instead putting the onus on you. You do the work of proving why option 1 doesn't collapse into pointlessness. And by doing so, option 1 crumbles. If you don't prove it, then I get to ignore it. If you do prove it, then you counter your own argument.

It is the nature of the universe that you cannot have definite proofs (as defined by formal logic and axiomatic mathematics). — Treatid

Again, feel free to prove this. Once again, doing so will defeat the statement.

Solispsism destroys Axiomatic Mathematics. — Treatid

Once again, the onus is on you to prove this statement.

Do you have a specific reason why we should disregard solipsism and the observations that lead to it? — Treatid

I have plenty, but first you must demonstrate why there is any reason we should accept solipsism and the observations that lead to it. Why should I, a person who isn't you, accept that you are able to prove that the only thing I can know exists is me?

I like the style/rigour of what you are doing. But I think what you are trying to do is impossible. — Treatid

I appreciate it, but we're on the philosophy boards. We can claim things are possible or impossible, but its all about proving it. Can you prove its impossible? What you're doing otherwise is taking the weak position of trying to have everyone else prove something which you haven't clearly spelled out yourself. You're committing the very flaw you're accusing others of.

Yes, it would make communication clearer and faster if we had rigorous definitions that everyone understood and agreed with. That isn't reality. — Treatid

So if you read the paper, you'll find that I both form foundations and standards upon which we can have definitive knowledge. Yet I also note there are plenty of times (in fact, the majority) in which much of our claims, language, etc, are based on induction. This is necessary for efficient communication, as creating a solidly known definition takes time and effort that is generally not required in day to day conversation. That does not mean it is impossible to create objective knowledge or terms.

So yes, most of our communication is filled with inductive premises, but that's a far cry from stating it is impossible to create or think on something objective. Again, you need to prove this yourself, not take the weak stance of making everyone else do the work to counter a claim you haven't fully tested yourself.

For example, I think you cannot justify the distinction you make between thought and experience.

Thought and experience are aspects of a single whole. You can't have thought without experience and vice versa. — Treatid

Then you misunderstood the definitions. Thoughts are an experience. I never say otherwise. "All tigers are cats, but not all cats are tigers." for example.

If we get into the weeds - we don't know what 'thinking', 'existing', 'experience' or 'self' mean in a definite manner. — Treatid

Yes, you do. You do within your own experience. Words are tools we use to categorize discrete experiences and concepts. They can be loosely defined, or very tightly defined. That's your call. If you wish to define something to the point it can be objective, you can, it just takes a lot of effort. To communicate with others, there must be a certain level of rigid definition to the term that both of you share, or else communication would be impossible. If I say 'dog' but my personal definition of dog is 'monkey', then we're at a loss with each other.

But if I'm a botanist who studies tree species, I'm going to have very rigorous definitions and standards that I share among my co-workers. These are objective terms used to identify plant species. Without this, science would be worthless.

While you get that definitions and communication are contextual, the contextual does not mean we can't have objective definitions. The contextual decides how objective our definitions are required or expected to be in that particular context. Just because you choose to remain in a context that you decide not to use objective definitions, does not mean its impossible for there to be a context in which there are tight objective definitions and conclusions.

If you can describe a static object you will have shown that I'm wrong and that I don't know what I'm talking about. — Treatid

Certainly, a 1X1X1 inch cube of solid iron with a density that weighs 10 grams.

A. You haven't actually described anything. "Objects are not relationships" is not a description of an Object. — Treatid

Its iron, its in the shape of a cube with 1X1X1 dimensions, and it weighs 10 grams. This can be tested and confirmed objectively.

B. What you have actually described is relationships. My default position is that if you manage to describe something it must have actually been a (set of) relationships in the first place. — Treatid

The universe changes, so it must be composed of stuff that can change. The universe is connected so it must be composed of things that connect. The universe is diverse so it must be composed of differences.

Objects do not have these properties. The universe is not composed of objects.

We label the things Relationships. — Treatid

I'm going to fire back here and note that your definition of "Relationship" needs to be tighter. If you're going to dismiss normal use of commonly accepted words and introduce your own meaning, you need to be very clear for it to be accepted. Objects do not have relationships like people do. Objects are described and known by experience and properties. If this simple language does not work, you need to detail why.

Philosophers, mathematicans and physicists have been looking for definitive, absolute truths to build upon. Objective truths. An Objective Universe. — Treatid

This is something you are already familiar with as philosophers. You already know that objective definitions are a hard problem.

Don't fight this result. Lean into it. Accept it. Then work forward from there. — Treatid

Not at all. Being intellectually lazy and giving up to pat ourselves on the back is what the general populace does. Don't ever fall for that intellectual trap. Your mind, like your muscles, wants to be lazy, sit on a couch and get fat. Don't let that happen. If you're interested in epistemology, I have at least one objective definition here. There's a good summary in the following post if that helps.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1

↪Philosophim But then for anyone who seriously asks that question, the inherent goodness of existence must precisely be in question, must it not? — Pantagruel

Yes, what I do here is question the inherent goodness of existence, and determine that if there is an objective morality, it must conclude that existence, as a fundamental, should be. After the proof is finished, there is no longer any question. Even if my other proposals which build upon this fundamental are flawed, this fundamental answer to the base question stands.

The only sense, the only sense in which any of this makes any sense, is in the sense of the Shakespearian question. So if you are actually contemplating whether to be or not to be, as a choice, then you can come to the conclusion that existence is a good. — Pantagruel

Correct, and that is all this section is proving. The follow up post is where I try to logically build something off of this fundamental. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. Feel free to post your critiques in that section and I'll address them to the best of my abilities.

Hang on. If good is what should be, then morality is an evaluation of what should be. Sure. If anything, that exactly contradicts your conclusion that existence is good, since it is about a good which does not yet exist (but can be instantiated by actions). — Pantagruel

Right, so morality is an analysis of what ought to be. So, if presented with two scenarios, I can use the premises of a morality to decide what outcome would be most optimal, or good. In this instance, its the state of there being existence, vs there being none at all. Where is the contradiction here?

"If existence should not be, then it is not good" Alright. But who says existence should not be? What is the point of assuming that? All you are doing is begging the question of the contrary, and trying to make it look like you are somehow deriving it from a logical operation (self-contradiction). — Pantagruel

Let me post these points from the OP again:

a. Assume that there is an objective morality.

If there is not an objective morality, then of course this is moot.

b. This leaves two answers to the question, "Should there be existence?". They are, "Yes", or "No".

Now we have a binary. If one is true, the other is false. — Philosophim

In sum, we work down to a fundamental question of morality, and realize there can be only two answers. Logically, if I demonstrate that one answer leads to a contradiction, then this means the other solution must be true if it does not lead to a contradiction. This is a basic Reductio Ad Absurdum argument. There is no begging of any question here.

What I really, really dislike is the way that you are now, in subsequent posts, presenting all of these poorly substantiated and widely criticized assumptions in an axiomatic fashion — Pantagruel

Why? The subsequent posts rely on the conclusions of the previous posts. This helps separate the arguments into chunks for better discussion, and helps focus the conversation on areas that people have difficulty with. I'm also clearly indicating that each post builds upon the last. If you don't agree with previous points, then you won't be able to understand how I build to the new points.

some of your fundamental assumptions are highly idiosyncratic and far from intuitively clear, as the objectors have been trying to point out. — Pantagruel

Feel free to point them out. I have no objection to that. But specify them, don't generally accuse if you want to make a point. I'll answer as they come, and if you point out something I agree with, I'll let you know. Just post them in the section that best suits your questions.

Then you start presenting more idiosyncratic ideas in later posts like "quantifying existence", which really isn't a thing. — Pantagruel

Feel free to post in that one about quantification of existence. I can refer to the OP points there, answer your questions, and go into detail. However, I don't want to get into a lengthy discussion on that section, if you don't find the premises that build to it sound. Then we've just wasted both of our times when really we needed to agree to the underlying points first (Or at least assume it while discussing the next steps).

Of course, if in the later steps I contradict conclusions in the earlier steps, that's perfectly fine to call out.

It's like you are trying to retroactively confer authority on your own un-substantiated axioms by weaving them into a system that people must agree with before they can criticize it. — Pantagruel

Nope. You'll find I'm straight forward with any issues or questions you have. Its just a simple A-> B -> C set of arguments, so if you're going to argue against point C because you believe point A is wrong, we really need to discuss point A before C. I am not claiming that you must agree to all the points in this, the first post. Only that if you want to discuss the later posts, its assumed that you understand and accept the premises of the previous posts.

First, even if there is an objective morality, it is inherently nonsensical that that morality should make existential claims. Morality is by definition about right and wrong. — Pantagruel

Lets look at the definitions in the OP once again.

Good - what should be
Existence - what is
Morality - a method of evaluating what is good

If good is "what should be" then morality is an analysis of evaluating "what should be". Therefore it is not nonsensical using these definitions. If you would like to propose other definitions, and why they would be better, then we can discuss that.

You are committing a flagrant category mistake by attempting to extrapolate from a moral ought to a metaphysical is. What would it even mean to assert "there should be no existence"? — Pantagruel

I'll repost point one again:

1. All moral questions boil down to one fundamental question that must be answered first, "Should there be existence?"

Starting with human centric morality, a question might be asked, "Should I lie to another person for personal gain?" But to truly answer this objectively, I must first have the answer to the question. "Should I exist at all?" Yet this goes further. until we arrive at a fundamental question of morality that must be answered before anything else can. "Should there be existence at all?" — Philosophim

My point is if good is "what ought to be" and we are analyzing "what ought to be", all moral questions will arrive at a fundamental that must be answered. "Should anything exist?" If existence should not be, then it is not good. If existence should be, then it is good. And to be clear, we are talking about any existence vs no existence at all. This is not 'existents' or discrete identifies of existence like atoms, humans, etc. This is the fundamental question of, "If there would be no existence, or some existence at all, what would an objective morality have to answer?"

All your claims about an objective morality being existentially self-founding prove is that anything which exists must exist in a state of non-self-contradiction. — Pantagruel

No, I don't prove ruductio ad absurdum. I'm using it to prove a point that any objective morality that claims, "Existence should not be" contradicts itself. Let me post the last few points again:

e. If it is the case that there is something objective which concludes there should be no existence, that objectivity must exist.

f. But if it exists, then according to itself, it shouldn't exist.

g. If it shouldn't exist, then the answer "No" objectively shouldn't exist thus contradicting itself. — Philosophim

This is not the same as a banana proving that it is good. This is noting that at the fundamental question, there is a binary response. One leads to a contradiction, the other one does not, therefore the other one is true.

As others have pointed out, all you are doing is repeatedly assuming what you are claiming to "prove," which is that existence is good. — Pantagruel

And once again, those others are clearly wrong. I assume both binaries, and the binary that "Existence should not be" contradicts itself, while the "Existence should be," does not. Its a fairly straight forward Reductio ad absurdum argument.

In fact, there is extensive evidence to the fact that moral badness exists. — Pantagruel

True. You may want to read the next steps then. This part is only about answering the fundamental of "Existence vs non-existence". In my later papers that are linked in the OP, I note how to identify within existence discrete entities called 'existents'. So at that point I'm able to say, "This is separate from that" in existence. As we dig deeper, we find that some existents and their combinations result in over all more or less existence. For example, it is more existence for a father and son to live then the father to die and the son to live.

For now, understand that we are starting a base fundamental here, and the problem of the fundamental should be analyzed as it is.