I think I am beginning to understand what you are trying to go for, which is, if I am not mistaken, that morality itself contains a ‘moral’ judgment that ‘the reason must/should exist’ if it is to have ‘moral’ signification and then you are trying to demonstrate that this contradicts B. Is that sort of right? — Bob Ross

Yes, that's about it. Essentially a reason must exist for any moral judgement. But if it exists, then according to it, it should not exist. Morality is the analysis of what 'should' be. Meaning that according to the the claim, "Everything should not exist", even a reason for this moral claim should not exist.

‘B != !B’ is, even when conjoined with ‘B = B’, a tautology that is not equivalent to the law of non-contradiction — Bob Ross

Its not the law of non-contradiction, just pointing out a contradiction.

This one is more of a question than a critique: is ‘moral’ signifying anything special here? — Bob Ross

Yes. I think I realized that I was putting the emphasis on the wrong point. I was putting emphasis on the reason, B, instead of the moral proposal itself, A. Its not that B makes A false, its that A makes B false. The moral claim notes that its reason should not exist, which means that the moral claim, "Everything should not exist,' should not exist either.

Its making me wonder if I'm introducing an extra variable into the equation, the reason. I'm looking for the foundation as it is, and the reason is what we're trying to discover. At the end, I'm essentially stating that the reason why it 'should or should not' is because there is a contradiction in 'should not exist' itself, not a contradiction in the reason. So yes, if I simplify this down a bit, I think it will be much more clear.

An objective morality is not necessarily dependent on human judgement. So we're claiming its possible that it would exist on its own. If an objective morality exists, then it boils down to one binary question as its foundation: "Should existence be, or not?" Instead of looking for a reason, what we're really looking for is the logical consequence of the solution.

So if it were true that an objective morality existed and its conclusion is that "Existence should not be." then its claiming its own existence shouldn't be either. Meaning an objective morality that states 'Existence should not be,' shouldn't exist. This also means nothing should exist. Not us, not the reasoning to find an objective morality, and not morality itself.

Its definitely not a classical contradiction, but it is something. It would mean there should be the cessation of everything, and yet existence persists. It would also fly in the face of every moral theory ever concocted. It doesn't contradict its own ontology, but it is in perpetual conflict with it. For something to have a 'should' it means if reality could make that state, it should. Which means that if reality could, it would eliminate the objective reality that states, "Existence should not be'. But if we eliminated that objective morality, we don't eliminate the question. Which means at the end of the day, what should be, is that there should exist an objective morality that concludes, "Existence should be".

So then, its not an ontological necessity that if an objective morality exists, that it conclude 'Existence should be.' Its more that such a morality seems so at odds with itself and with our general sense, that it doesn't fit. If it were the case, its time to put on the clown mask, whip up some bombs, and destroy the world and oneself with a bang! :D

So then I can't ontologically prove that if an objective morality exists, its not "Existence should not be". However, we can still look at the idea that such a morality would still insist that it should not exist, and I am inclined to agree with it! Meaning I still think that it is reasonable to conclude that if there is an objective morality, at its foundation it should be "Existence should be".

If you agree with this portion, then we can move onto other aspects of the discussion. We can go back to the objective/subjective setup, the idea that '2b or not 2b' is the fundamental moral argument that all moral questions chain down to, or we can move onto the fun thought experiments I had with the idea that "Existence is good" would lead to. Thank you for sticking with this portion until this point at my request, the choice is yours going forward.

It makes no sense to say that "there is no first cause" is the first cause. — Michael

Correct. Which is why when we reach a point in any chain of causality where there is no prior causality for its existence, 'it simply is', that we've reached the first cause from which the rest of the chain or set follows.

This isn't anthroprmorphism though. I'm not stating there is any consciousness or intent behind a first cause. I'm just logically pointing out that no matter the type of causality, infinite or finite, we still arrive at a point where the cause for existence taken in total has no prior explanation, or cause, for why it exists. At then end of the day, the first cause is, "It simply is."

I'm suggesting that "it simply is" the case that (2) is correct or that "it simply is" the case that (3) is the case.

So, "it simply is" the case that there is no first cause. — Michael

"It simply is" is the first cause.

It may simply be a brute fact that there is no first cause. That explanations end somewhere isn't that causation starts somewhere.
— Michael

In other words, it could be that "it simply is" the case that causality is infinite. — Michael

We are actually talking about the same thing. :) Where explanations end is the start of causation. A first cause has no prior explanation for its existence, "it simply is". That base, "X simply is" is a first cause from which other causes can happen. My point is that whether the universe has an finite or infinitely regressive causality, the reason why it is one way over the reason that it isn't another way is, "It simply is." There is no prior explanation or reason for its existence.

Its nice to see someone actually addressing the OP.

In (4) you say that if (1) is true then A has no cause.

In (5) you ask "why is either (2) or (3) the case?".

Notice that these address different considerations. It is equally appropriate to ask "why is (1) the case?". — Michael

I ask the same question about 1. Why is there a finite limit to causality? The answer cannot be found by looking to something prior. So the answer is that 'It simply is.' Its the same answer in each case. Essentially the question is, "What caused existence?" And in all cases, there is no prior explanation. The first cause is, "It simply is."

This is getting wildly off topic now guys. Please refer to the OP. If you want to make another topic to discuss, feel free.

If you prefer to think that your Mind is a material object, what are its tangible properties : entangled neurons? Can you examine an Idea under a magnifying glass? — Gnomon

You can examine a lit object under a magnifying glass, but you can't examine a sound under a magnifying glass. We're using the wrong tool and looking for the wrong thing. We measure consciousness by behavior. We experience our own consciousness, but no one else's. As such, we cannot measure our own subjective consciousness, nor any other. But we have determined that the brain affects consciousness over multiple scientific discoveries over decades now. Its incontrovertible.

Of course, I can't prove that's true, any more than scientists can prove that a cosmic Bang created a universe from nothing-nowhere. — Gnomon

True, but scientists at least have math to back their reasoning. That's the difference. There is 'something' behind the prediction besides imagination. This is the same thing with quarks. We don't have a complete understanding of them yet, but the understanding we have so far is based on testable evidence. This is how progress is made. We theorize, but then we must test. The problem with the theories that consciousness is separate from matter and energy, is that there is no evidence from tests. Its why I state repeatedly that consciousness is really not in the realm of philosophy any longer, but neuroscience. We can use philosophy off of what we know in science, but if we speculate without taking in what we know, its likely going to be a cast off idea in history.

Sounds like you do have an issue with philosophical and scientific Postulation*2. In Darwin's day, the explanation for the variety of plants & animals was based on the Genesis myth. Do you think he was out of line to "assert" that there was another way to make sense of biology? — Gnomon

No, because Genesis was not known and provable with evidence, it was myth. Beliefs are not the same as what is known at the time.

Just as Catholics believe in angels based on infallible scripture, modern physicists definitely believe in Quarks based on infallible math. — Gnomon

The difference here is that its an opinion that scripture is infallible, and fails several applied tests. Quarks do not purport to be infallible ideas, they are what continue to stand in test after test.

Quark masses are fundamental quantities in particle physics, but they cannot be accessed and measured directly in experiments because, with the exception of the top quark, quarks are confined inside composite particles — Gnomon

And this is not a problem. This is the limit of what we can measure today, and we take what is most reasonable from that analysis.

Any measure you could speak of is a meaning, and all meaning is created and the property of a conscious subject, and/or collectives of conscious subjects. Measures and meanings are not lying around on the ground of an orchard like so many fallen apples. The source is subjective consciousness in its individual form or its collective. Perhaps, I am missing something here in your objection, please enlighten me. — boagie

Hi Boagie, I really appreciate your contribution to the thread, but Bob Ross is currently doing me the favor of either discounting or helping me refine what I'm trying to say here to a much more refined level. If you want to follow a long a bit in the conversation feel free, but it might be hard to spring board into right now. I think when he and I get through some more I'll likely write up the addendum, or note that it didn't work.

No contradiction. You conflated B with “B should not exist”. Those are separate propositions. — Bob Ross

No, I missed writing a step like you noted. I also think I see now what your issue is. I'm not conflating that B is the same as B should not exist, but the language SURE comes close. I'm noting that if B should not exist, then B cannot be true. I too have felt that the previous iteration didn't quite hit the mark, but this may finalize it.

First, we have to understand that for A to exist, it must have a reason. But this doesn't mean the reason exists. We still have to demonstrate we can have a true reason. To be a true reason, it must not contradict itself.

1. It is unknown whether, A, 'everything should not exist' is true. A = T/F
2. If A is true, then there must be a reason, B, and B must be true. A <-> B
3. It is unknown if B is true = T/F
4. For B to be true, it must not contradict itself B = B && B != !B
5. B is the reason that 'nothing should exist'
6. Because it is moral that 'nothing should exist' the reason should also not exist.
7. But for 'Everything should not exist' we have a reason that does exist, that should not exist.
8. But if the reason should not exist, then it is immoral for the reason to exist. Thus B is false. !B
9. if the reason should not exist, then 'Existence should not exist' should not exist either. !B <-> !A

The problem I'm having is fitting in 5,6, and 7 with propositional logic alone, I wonder if I need predicate logic. I can definitely see the trickiness of the language here in what I'm doing, and I'm not certain if its correct. I think the weirdness is that we have to prove that the reason doesn't contradict itself. Its a simple matter of "Can't have 1 and 2, but 2 is needed to prove you can't have 1 and 2", but does it actually work or am I getting caught up in a language game? See if you can poke some holes in it again.

As n increases without bound one can look at the entire structure as a mathematical entity that has the value α=limn→∞Fn(z),z∈S — jgill

Yes, the point is not to analyze the regressiveness itself, its to look at the entire structure then ask what prior causation existed that caused it to be that structure.

Then the causation chain exists as a mathematical enterprise but cannot be associated with a particular value. It simply is. (My attempt at philosophy) :cool: — jgill

Yes, the value in question is irrelevant. The point is that no matter the the value, it simply is and thus 'a first cause'.

“Emergence” is a philosophical term for mysterious appearances with "no discernible path". — Gnomon

But is what emerged something other than matter and/or energy? To my knowledge, no. If you think it is something other than matter and energy, do we have evidence of it existing apart from our imagination?

The mind has three basic functions: thinking, feeling, and wanting. — Gnomon

Right, but there is no evidence that this originates apart from matter and energy. We can call our thoughts and ideas whatever terminology we want. Do we have evidence of something existing apart from matter and energy?

But philosophers tend to question everything, and to speculate beyond current knowledge. Do you think Science has all the answers that we need to know? — Gnomon

No. My issue is not with speculation. Its with assertion. Maybe we'll find out in the future that consciousness isn't physical. But today? It is. A speculation that it might not be in the future does not invalidate what we know today. The problem is some people get so lost in the excitement of their speculation, that they forget they've failed to demonstrate its truth. Its very easy to construct a speculative argument that has air tight logic and solves all of our problems. Its another to demonstrate it can be applied to reality without contradiction.

So, my thesis is just carrying-on the tradition of questioning supposedly "settled science" — Gnomon

Keep at it! I find it very important that we poke and prod at science. My issue again is the assertion that because we can think of a possibility, that this somehow invalidates what we know today. That is never true. I can think of a magical unicorn as the reason for electromagnitism, and construct an valid set of premises and conclusions based on this being true. What has been forgotten is that you must first prove the unicorn exists.

For example, both quarks & gluons are unobservable hypothetical entities, that are basically definitions without referent. — Gnomon

This isn't quite correct.

"Although the theory (quarks) was clever, it didn't immediately catch on because there was no experimental evidence for quarks. This came four years later in 1968 at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) in California. Experimenters fired electrons, and then later muons, at protons, and found evidence that the electrons and muons were scattering off three smaller particles contained within the protons, each of these smaller particles having their own electric charge. These particles are the quarks.

...Each one has its own set of quantum numbers, and their masses are very different, with the up and down quarks being the least massive, and the top quark being the heaviest with a mass over 61,000 times more massive than the up quark.

https://www.space.com/quarks-explained#:~:text=Quarks%20in%20quantum%20physics,-The%20Large%20Hadron&text=Experimenters%20fired%20electrons%2C%20and%20then,These%20particles%20are%20the%20quarks.

So we can see that quarks have mass and have been conclusively measured. So as you can see, there's still no evidence of something in the universe that cannot be confirmed to be matter or energy yet.

The hypothetical in the top quote is just using ‘must’ in a non-normative ‘moral’ sense to indicate that if there is a reason, then there is a reason — Bob Ross

Agreed.

whereas the assertion in the second to top quote is that there simply must/should be a reason, not that if it were to exist, then it would exist. — Bob Ross

This is the part I'm not understanding. Can you clarify? What does must/should mean?

It was identity in your point 2:

2. There must be a reason that everything should not exist — Bob Ross

An identity is A = A. I'm not seeing how I'm doing that here.

When reformulated, this just tautological:

2. For there to be a reason that everything should not exist, some reason should [has to] exist [such that everything should not exist]. — Bob Ross

This is true, but that's why I condensed it down into the revised version above.

If you are conveying, instead, that “if everything should not exist, then there must be a reason” then that is not taulogical, but that is not equivalent to point 2 (you made). — Bob Ross

Correct, that's not the same as what point 2 is saying. Its an odd thing that I agree with practically everything you're stating yet I can't understand the overall point you're trying to make. :) We're almost there I feel though, so please keep trying.

So if the truth of its own premise is that it shouldn't exist, but it must exist if it is to claim that it shouldn't exist, we're left with a contradiction

I agree, but that's not my conclusion. The contradiction is not in the fact that there must be a reason that exists if its the case that 'existence should not be.' The contradiction is in what it claims if this reason exists. The reason itself must be coherent. This is pointing to my language leading to ambiguity, so let me see if I can clarify.

For A to be, there must exist a B for it to exist, does not mean that "B must exist". After all, we don't know if A is true. Now if it is the case that A is true, then B must also be true. But we cannot prove that A is true, so this is an If 'A <-> B' statement, not a 'A is' statement. I feel like we've mixed up 'must' with true, so maybe this is where the confusion is coming from. Let me see if I can write this more cleanly then to avoid this unintentional ambiguity.

Remember, what is true or false is whether it 'should' be or not.

1. It is unknown whether, A, 'everything should not exist' is true. A = T/F
2. If A is true, then there must be a reason, B, and B must be true. A <-> B
3. If B is true, then B should not exist. B -> !B
4. But if B is true, then B is false by contradiction B = B = !B
5. If B should is false, then A is false. !B <-> !A
Therefore 'everything should not exist' cannot be true, because the reason itself notes that itself should not exist. The reason would note that its own existence is immoral, and should not be. Meaning what should be, is that the reason, and thus the initial moral claim, should not exist. And if there should not be a reason for 'nothing should exist', the only conclusion in the binary is that 'something should exist'.

This is good Bob, keep going please.

This is still incorrect: the claim is that if there is a reason that everything should not exist, then there is a reason that everything should not exist. — Bob Ross

Almost, but not quite. We're assuming if 'everything should not exist', there must be a reason. Its not an identity.

“There must <...>” is the same statement as “There should <...>”: same issue. — Bob Ross

Now I'm confused. Didn't you just have an issue with me swapping 'should' and 'must' earlier? I agree you had that right. What should exist is not the same as what must exist.

9. Because A cannot assert the truth of its own premise, or contradicts itself, it cannot exist. Therefore 2 is contradicted, and there cannot be a reason for why everything should not exist. — Bob Ross

Correct.

The truth of its own premise is that it shouldn’t exist, not that it should and should not exist. — Bob Ross

Also correct.

So if the truth of its own premise is that it shouldn't exist, but it must exist if it is to claim that it shouldn't exist, we're left with a contradiction. It means we cannot claim that "Everything should not exist." What this means is that the reason why there should be no existence, should not be. Remember, we're finding a foundational reason. A foundational reason must not be a contradiction.

The best we can do is alter the statement. "Everything should not exist, except the reason that everything should not exist." Why? That's not a foundation, that just leaves more questions and confusion. This can also be translated to, "At least one thing should exist." The reason? Because without a reason existing to indicate what should or should not be, there is no should or should not be. Meaning that once again, we cannot claim that 'everything should not exist'.

Does that clear it up?

hat it is exceedingly vague. As pointed out by me above, and by the SEP article, at issue the question of what constitutes the physical. — Wayfarer

For me, the physical is something that requires matter or energy to exist. I don't think its honestly all that detailed, its just an answer like: "What makes up molecules? "Atoms". The answer doesn't answer every question we have. It doesn't tell us how atoms can combine or be built into a world of humans. Its just noting the building blocks that everything fundamentally has at its core.

It also does not deny language that has arisen like 'mental', 'subjective' or 'feelings'. Its just important that while using different terminology that we don't forget that its all based in physical reality at the end of the day.

This is 'Hempel's dilemma': if physicalism is defined by reference to contemporary physics, then it is false — after all, who thinks that contemporary physics is complete? — Wayfarer

Hempel's dilemma is an issue of epistemology. Replace 'physicalism' with 'anythingism' and Hempel's dilemma still applies. All Hempel is noting is that what we know today may not be known tomorrow. As an epistemological problem, its trivial. Of course this is the case. That doesn't mean we dismiss what we know today for today. If we did, then we would be stuck in Hempel's dilemma every tomorrow as well. As such its a point that helps us understand epistemology, but does nothing about the issue of physicalism, idealism, or any other ism.

In effect, and this is the way you use it, 'physical' amounts to a general deference to science as an arbiter of reality — Wayfarer

Yes. I refer to what is known today. We always keep the possibility that what we know tomorrow may invalidate the knowledge of the day. But the only rational choice is to take what we know today and do our best with it. It doesn't mean we can't speculate! As I've noted many times, speculation is fun and can lead to some interesting ideas. The problem comes in when someone is so enamored with speculation, that they believe it must be true, and invalidates what we know today. This can never be the case.

To you, this is obvious, as you frequently say, never mind that a great deal of philosophy comprises questioning what is generally thought to be obvious. — Wayfarer

A great deal of philosophy is conjecture, fanciful ideas, and speculation. Many people love to think their viewpoint is obvious, but it must be proven, not assumed. All of these ideas are fun for sure, but its our job as philosophers to weed out philosophy that strays too far from logic and reality and begins to assert itself without proof. Philosophy is a giant brainstorm amongst multiple people, and most ideas will be wrong. Its why we study logic, logical fallacies, and means of thinking that have been proven as rational and air tight. Its so we can sail the storm to find the rare island of truth.

Please, keep brainstorming. Keep poking and prodding at what is known today. That is the only way we make progress and find things that have been missed. But a poke and a prod that does not reference what is known today, cannot demonstrate a valid and clear flaw in today's knowledge. A want, a wish, and our imagination may be desired as true, but that alone does not make it true.

One can interpret circular causality as saying that there is no initial cause, or as saying that what is considered "initial" is subjective or relative to the observer. — sime

No, whether there is an observer or not, there is still no reason, no prior existence why there is an infinite regress of causality. People seem to confuse the idea that you are needed for reality to exist. You are not. You are needed for reality to be interpreted. There still exists the thing in iteself that can be interpreted.

The important thing, is that causal circularity implies that every causal relation is symmetric and of the form A <--> B. or equivalently, that the causal order A --> B --> C comes equipped with a dual order in the opposite direction, C --> B --> A. — sime

This is one type of regressively infinite causality. There is also just flat regressive with no circularity. Understanding how the regressive causality works doesn't change the conclusion.

Also, a presentist might interpret the present as being the perpetual "first" cause , in spite of also admitting that present events are caused by "past" events when speaking in the vulgar. — sime

It depends on your measurement slice. Lets say I take a measurement slice to be as long as the universe has existed. While a fairly useless measurement slice for any other practical purpose other than this, we could do it. What prior existence caused the universe to have occurred? Whether its seconds, minutes, hours, or really, REALLY big, we're still left with the same conclusion when we complete the full set of prior causality. There is no prior reason that caused the set to exist, it simply is.

The point of the OP is to show you that no matter how causality regresses, you are left with the conclusion that there is no prior reason for existence period. Why does circular causality exist? Infinitely regressive causality? Finite causality? At some point you understand that it simply exists. There is no reason it should, or should not be. It is the first cause.

↪Philosophim I was indoctrinated in materialism for almost all my life. It's only recently that I've discovered it's incoherent. Materialism claims that we could be in a simulation. That would entail that all our feelings and imaginings and dreams and the essence of who we are are a collection of electronic switches. Doesn't that strike you as completely absurd? That the joy of playing with your children can emerge if you take some switches, run some current through them, and turn them on and off in a certain way? Why on Earth should I believe such nonsense? — RogueAI

A simulation? It means material is reality RogueAI. It doesn't strike me as absurd at all that this is how we work. Ever seen a bisection of the body? Seen the veins, muscle, viscera? You can come away with two opinions. Either its gross and unseemly, or you realize its a magnificent triumph of matter.

Yes, if someone messed with your brain, they could turn that joy off. Why should you believe such nonsense? For the same reason you should know that a bear can eat you. That if you want to continue to have joy with your kids, you have to treat your body and brain well. Eat well, don't drink alcohol beyond moderation, don't smoke, exersise, etc.

Even further, if you start having memory loss or strokes, you can go to the doctor and get treatment to fix or minimize the issue. That 'nonsense' is why we can treat brain disorders like schizophrenia, suicidal depression, and a whole host of other psychological issues. Because understanding reality gives you power to make it better instead of being completely at its whims, or worse, creating problems through choices of ignorance.

Picture Holmes in your mind right now. — RogueAI

In my physical mind? Of course. My brain is matter, and its a cacophony of electrical and chemical processes all letting me experience my individual subjective experience of "Sherlock Holmes".

Fictional characters and mathematical theorems and numbers are mental objects. — RogueAI

And aren't mental objects an experience of a physical brain? Do mental objects form in reality outside of brains? Do they exist in a subspace? What is a mental object made out of? I'm not trolling, I'm cracking your indoctrination. This is philosophy where we are supposed to freely think. Really think on it.

Let's say you describe all that rage and red-light running in purely physical terms and then showed it to an alien who didn't know if humans were p-zombies or not. Could the alien figure out, from that purely physical description of my rage-induced red-light running behavior, that I am not a p-zombie? — RogueAI

We don't know what an alien would say, as they may have a greater understanding of the universe then us. We don't need p-zombies either. Lets just separate consciousness into two parts. Behavioral consciousness and subjective consciousness. Currently, the only way we understand objective consciousness is through behavior. Currently, the only way we understand subjective consciousness is through our own personal experience.

In other words, science has never attempted to define objective consciousness through subjective behavior. That's because its impossible to know what its like to be another subject besides yourself. Did you know that some people do not have an inner monologue, while others cannot visualize a single thing? How can your or I ever objectively understand what that is like without experiencing it ourselves? We can't. Its beyond human knowledge.

A p-zombie is a 'pointless zombie'. We've never used subjective assessments of consciousness to objectively describe conscious behavior. So its irrelevant what a zombie subjectively experiences, its how a zombie behaves.

What we can do is tie behavior to the physical brain. Neuroscience and psychiatry are proven fields with real results in managing consciousness with medications, anesthesia, and brain surgery. Mental states are physical states. The subjective experience is the experience of being the brain matter. We can see the brain matter and watch your behavior. But we cannot know what you are feeling while your brain matter is responding with the behavior. And in no way does this discount that your subjective experience is also physical in origin.

Sherlock Holmes? The Pythagorean Theorem? — RogueAI

Yes, these are physical in origin too. Sherlock Holmes does not reside in a separate subspace or as a separate material from matter and/or energy. It was created by the physical brain of Arthur Conan Doyle. It was then written with physical ink on physical paper. Printed by a physical machine, and read by physical eyes and brains.

The Pythagorean Theorem is based off of a physical construct we call a triangle. We studied its physical properties, and came to the conclusion that the physical properties logically lead to certain consistent conclusions. It was communicated with physical speech as the air bent to philosopher's tongues. A physical feather written on physical parchment.

If you don't believe these things are physical in origin, then what are they made of? Where did they come from? In what space do they reside?

↪Philosophim So you dismiss all the arguments against physicalism in the source article? Or is it more that you think we can safely assume they’re wrong? Or you haven’t considered them? — Wayfarer

The topic here was about a snippet from the source article, in which I made my own addendums.

I would just modify one thing. I would state that everything that we've discovered so far is physical in origin. It does not mean that everything is physical, as we have not looked at everything yet. I also wouldn't even say this is a philosophy, this is just the fact of the known universe at this time. Finally, this does not preclude the use of terms such as metaphysics, ideas, or words that are not necessarily associated with 'the physical'. The point is to understand that the origin of everything so far known is physical, and shouldn't imply more than that. — Philosophim

Feel free to point out an issue with my proposal. If you feel one of the points in the article would be a good criticism for it, feel free to reference why it would.

Answering a question with a question is answering... — Banno

Bye Banno.

Philosophim Are you going to argue that traffic laws are physical? Wouldn't that be a category error? — Banno

Are you going to answer my question with a question, or answer it? This isn't a one sided conversation. Where do traffic laws come from Banno? Once you answer that, I'll answer any follow up questions you have. If you're going to avoid answering, I see no reason to continue discussing with you.

2. For there to be a reason that everything should not exist, some reason should [has to] exist [such that everything should not exist].

It is false that if a reason exists that it should exist, which is what you said in this point 2. When I convert, to try to be charitable — Bob Ross

Feel free to cross out or amend the statement to what you feel fits, its no problem for me and can help convey your point easily. Also, full agreement. That's a much better way to write the statement! Lets simplify this then to "There must be a reason that everything should not exist".

7. if A should exist, then it claims that A should not exist.
…
9 But if A should not exist, then it cannot assert that it should exist.

A doesn’t claim that A should exist, it claims that A should not exist. I think you are trying to infer this from point 2 (as far as I can tell), and 2 is just false or, when converted, a mere tautology that cannot be used to support the antecedent of point 7 (being that it is also false). — Bob Ross

No, I was not relying on P2 having the word 'should', just me poorly mixing up 'should' with 'must' in 2 which I can see made it confusing. With the amended point 2, the following points still hold.

2. There must be a reason that everything should not exist
...
7. If A exists, then it claims A should not exist.
8. But if A should not exist, then "Everything should not exist" should not be.
9. Because A cannot assert the truth of its own premise, or contradicts itself, it cannot exist.
Therefore 2 is contradicted, and there cannot be a reason for why everything should not exist.

P1: If one should eat babies, then they should find babies to eat. [p → q]
P2: One should eat babies. [p]
C: One should find babies to eat. [q] {Modus Ponens}

This is a logically sound and valid argument, and according to your own concession the contents of which are then objective. — Bob Ross

I see no problem with this. You did not prove that one should eat babies. All you did was prove that if P2 was true, then you can make the conclusion based on P1. That's fine.

We'll come back to subjectivity and objectivity after/if we resolve these points Bob. :)

we have not discovered anything that exists apart from matter and energy.
— Philosophim
Yeah, we have. Traffic laws. — Banno

Where did traffic laws come from?

There aren’t any: my point is just that I am predicating that only minds are ends-in-themselves and not equivocating them. — Bob Ross

Stating that something is self-evident doesn't demonstrate that its also not an equivocation though. If minds are not identical to ends-in-themselves, then we would need to see some difference between a mind and an end-in-itself. If you aren't seeing equivocation, could you note how they are not simply the same thing?

So that’s what I was asking about before: which premise do you currently reject? We can discuss further whichever one that is. — Bob Ross

Certainly! For me it is that I should value an end in itself beyond an opinion that I should do so. I see nothing concrete that binds me to it, or demonstrates a provable ethical decision. 180 proof is walking the same line I am, just in different details.

But, this would need proof of existence before it became anything more than speculation.

Well, that's what people believe they are demonstrating in their papers. In any event, the converse isn't decisively demonstrated. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I just wanted you to know that I think you're making fantastic points. I do understand that some people believe this, but I have not seen any success in this regards. Also yes, just because our best understanding today is that consciousness is from the brain, doesn't mean that tomorrow we could find something new which would change this. My point is that currently, the idea that consciousness does not come from the brain is speculative, and speculation cannot overrule the facts that we have today.

SO explain, using only physics, why folk stop at the red light. — Banno

Sure.

As you approach a red light, you physically move your eyes through nerve signals that allow waves of light that enter into your eye and bounce against the nerves at the back. These electrical and chemical signals are sent to the brain, where they are processed as 'a red light'. Your brain accesses memory through dendrite signaling, to know that a red light means stop.

Further processing results in a 'decision' to hit the brakes. Electrical and chemical signals are sent to the calf and leg muscles to coordinate muscle contraction in such a way that your foot depresses on the brake to stop the car.

I would state that everything that we've discovered so far is physical in origin.
— Philosophim

On what basis? — Wayfarer

Current discoveries in neuroscience and medicine. To my knowledge, we have not discovered anything that exists apart from matter and energy.

First, this is a nice discussion topic. Its always fun to think about things like this! Second, if you have any real interest in consciousness, my suggestion is not to look to philosophy, but neuroscience, psychology, and sociology. The days of wondering about consciousness as a concept alone are long gone, and without a good understanding of modern day science's explorations and conclusions about consciousness based on our subjective experience alone are intellectual play, not anything serious.

While there are a few areas of consciousness that are open to a philosophical lens, they must be done with the knowledge of what has already been discovered to have any bearing in reality.

2) Intuitively, consciousness is tied to the notion of individual:

But rationally, are they really tied together? Would the experience of consciousness be any different if we weren’t “one soul”, “one individual”? — Skalidris

I believe you are correct that they are not tied together. One can be conscious but not have any awareness of self as you mentioned. But often times the talk of consciousness has the fallacy of thinking it only applies to humans. If we are to look to animals, we can see other levels of consciousness without an indicator that they see a 'self'.

First there's "The mirror test". This is a test where animals, and even some human children as old as six cannot recognize that the image in the mirror is themselves. Now, I'm not saying that alone means that such subjects do not have a sense of "I". Its just a very visual example of creatures not recognizing 'Themselves". It could be because they have no notion of I, or it could be they simply lack the intellectual capacity to see the mirror as 'themself'.

Of course, there is an argument out there that animals are not truly conscious, only automatons. With the removal of biased hubris and a little thought, we can throw that notion out as ridiculous. You are familiar with the problem that we cannot objectively know what another person's subjective consciousness is like. And its true, we can't. Which means all of our judgements that other people are conscious are based on their behavior, and the fact that they're human. The lesson we can learn is that if something is confirmed to behave consciously, we cannot make an assessment as to whether they have a subjective, or non-subjective experience. Thus they could be conscious, but perhaps not have an "I".

When we get down to the point when a creature recognizes itself as a 'self' we find this much more difficult to determine through behavior. If a creature cannot communicate with us, how do we tell? It might fail the mirror test, but maybe it at some primitive level feels that it is, 'itself'. Considering we cannot know another creature's subjective experience by experiencing it ourselves, it seems extremely difficult for us to posit whether a being that behaves as a conscious entity has a sense of self without its explicit communication, or easily recognizable human behaviors.

Anyway, that's enough musing from me for now, hopefully it sparks some thoughts.

Being substrate independent, it seems difficult to reduce information to matter and energy, although some people do think it's possible. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Technically, its not substrate independent, we just minimize the differences to create a more manageable identity in our head. I'll use music as an example. You can play the same tune on a piano and a harp. While the 'notes' are the same, the expression is different because of the different medium. Meaning that the song on a harp and a piano are actually different, we just find a way of packaging certain information of actions that can be attempted on multiple mediums.

It might point to Hemple's Dilemma though, the idea that if "physical" = anything we have reason to believe exists, the term become vacuous. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, I'm keen on avoiding that as well. Perhaps there is something that exists that cannot be boiled down to energy and matter at its foundation. But, this would need proof of existence before it became anything more than speculation.

I am using energy as understood by E=mc^2.

"On the most basic level, the equation says that energy and mass (matter) are interchangeable; they are different forms of the same thing."

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/lrk-hand-emc2expl.html#:~:text=%22Energy%20equals%20mass%20times%20the,forms%20of%20the%20same%20thing.

Does this follow from an argument? Or is it an assumption? — frank

Show me something that doesn't originate from matter and energy. What third type of substance would it be?

I would just modify one thing. I would state that everything that we've discovered so far is physical in origin. It does not mean that everything is physical, as we have not looked at everything yet. I also wouldn't even say this is a philosophy, this is just the fact of the known universe at this time. Finally, this does not preclude the use of terms such as metaphysics, ideas, or words that are not necessarily associated with 'the physical'. The point is to understand that the origin of everything so far known is physical, and shouldn't imply more than that.

Hello Boagie, thanks for contributing. So an OP like this is setting up a very particular argument and set of vocabulary. Its a 'proof' if you were. You can have your own opinion, but when examining papers with proofs you should look at the premises and the conclusions as your main point of criticisms. So I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm simply asking you to focus on the OP and point out where in the OP its wrong.

So first, the OP is not proving that objective morality exists. Its taking a premise. "Assume objective reality exists, what must that necessarily be?" Why are we doing this? Because I see no proof against there being an objective reality, nor there for being an objective reality.

Again, the measure and meaning of all things is the property of subjective consciousness. The world in the absence of subjective consciousness is utterly meaningless. — boagie

You may be using a different meaning of subjective. Sometimes people confuse 'a subjects view point' with the term 'subjective'. Objectivity and subjectivity are both things subjects can do. As is any word or meaning. Objectivity is an approach a subject can make that results in a solution that is rationally provable to all subjects, despite their subjective viewpoint on the matter. Thus, while subjectively you might beleive that there is no objective morality, can you objectively prove it? Again, I am not proving it in this argument, I am only introducing what it must be if it does exist.

The world in the absence of subjective consciousness is utterly meaningless. — boagie

Subjective consciousness is not the same as 'subjectivity'. For example, it is objectively true that you have a subjective consciousness correct? Or do you view that your own subjective conscious is only subjectively true? If so, that would leave it open to the logical possibility that your subjective consciousness is subjectively false, which is absurd.

Interestingly, if the objective morality I've proposed here exists, objective morality is something discovered, and does not need subjects to have discovered it for it to still be true. Kind of like a tree falling in a forest when no one is around. Yes the terms tree, and the relations between falling, ground etc. would not exist without subjects, but the existence of the action in itself still would be.

Fixed-point iteration, i.e. F(z) = z, is the mathematical description of circular causation, which can be considered a non-finite conception of causality that is symmetrical and has no initial-cause, thus also eliminating the causal arrow. — sime

No, that actually proves a first cause. "What caused a circular causation to exist instead of another type of causation?" As you noted it "Has no initial-cause", thus there is no prior explanation for its existence. Meaning, its a first cause as defined in the OP.

Its nice to see someone tackle the actual argument. First, let me point out what the definition of a first cause is. Its a cause that has no prior explanation for its existence. In other words,

"It simply is, there's no prior explanation for its being" Yes. — jgill

So then your conclusion is the same as mine. Its not the simplification of the formula for infinite regress that the OP is noting, its just noting the set of all steps can be considered to represent it. You illustrated that for me. The question is then asked, "What caused there to be an infinite regress of causality?" The answer is, "There is no prior explanation, it simply is." Meaning that without us knowing whether there is a set of infinite causal regression, or a set of finite causal regression, we will reach a point of finite causal regression. Even a set of infinite regression, cannot avoid ultimately arriving at finite regression.

Essentially, "What caused it to be finite/infinitely regressive?" has no answer but the fact of its own existence. Now, maybe my vocabulary could be better. Maybe what I'm explaining could be described another way. It is really this phrase, "It simply is, there is no prior explanation for its being." that is ultimately true in any causal relationship. Do we call that a first cause? An uncaused cause? What do you think?

You borrowed from Anselm but left off "and this we all call god". — Banno

Really, quit trolling the thread Banno. This goes nowhere near the ontological argument. I expect better out of someone who been here as long as you have. What a shame.

If infinite causality, then the entire thing in total cannot itself have a cause, but is instead, for lack of a better word, magical in its so occurring - this with all the natural laws, etc., it encapsulates. — javra

Yes, in other words something without prior cause. A first cause as defined by the OP.

If, however, one assumes a causal determinism with an initial starting point, then the same issue applies to existence in total: its occurrence is absurd (for the reasons just specified). — javra

This can be an unnerving existential reality/realization for some but, all the same, I see no other rational conclusion to be had. — javra

I think the realization is very important to have and prove. I follow it up with https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12847/if-a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary-what-does-that-entail-for-the-universes-origins/p1

I think its a fantastic spring board into fun thoughts about cosmology. Unfortunately, because people think this always leads to "God", they shut down from thinking about this apart from God. The attempt here is to get knee jerk athiests and theists out of their focus on their fears on the ends of an argument and to actually think about it from a different perspective.

The OP assumes "a first cause to existence" instead of concluding in the position of absurdism - this as pertains to existence's being as a whole. — javra

No, I welcome the absurdism and form a conclusion from it. Too often the absurdism of reality existing is hand waved without thinking further into it beyond "God or not God". I appreciate the post.

↪Philosophim Yes, indeed. But it relies on the same supposed logic. — Banno

Does it? I'm not sure you understand it at all.

Too much invested, it seems. The cosmological argument is not as straight forward as you supose. — Banno

This is not a proof for God argument. I'm an atheist.