The best we can say is that the universe is all there is, unless the multiverse theory happens to be true, which is difficult to test at the moment. — Manuel

No disagreement.

If it is infinite however, it was never formed, it just is. — Manuel

Yes, I'm using the word "formed" but perhaps "incepted"? would be a better word? I originally wrote, "It just is" repeatedly in the lines, and while accurate, I felt I needed a word to encapsulate that phrase. So yes, that is the crux of the argument. If a universe is infinitely regressive, or finitely regressive, the reason for this is, "It just is." There can be no underlying reason for why the universe is. It simply is, no matter the type of origin we invent.

I just wanted it to be clear that your assumption is not self-evident. — T Clark

Which if you feel that way, is fine. But why? You simply said, "I don't agree." and left it at that! I want other viewpoints other than my own. If you just say "No" and walk away, I'll never know if your view point is right.

No, sir, I also read your opening sentence: — 180 Proof

Sigh. For shame 180. I am not arguing the Kalem cosmological argument. It is irrelevant whether it is plank state or big bang. Why all the effort to not read and comment on the logic of the argument, instead of just reading and commenting on the logic of the argument? Enough straw men please?

The article was a synopsis of a long-term satellite experiment on the direction in which cows lay together. No, there were no connections with drink water. This was also asked when I sent it. But why should there be? To dismiss it a priori shows narrow,-mindedness and certainly no scientific attitude. There could be a true link between magnetism and drinking behavior. — Verdi

Try to think about it from their point of view. You're trying to find people who have experience with cows who have had the same problem as yourself. You're looking for answers from people with results. As a practical rancher, you aren't looking for untested hypotheticals, you are looking for tested solutions that you can implement so that you minimize the time and cost of experimenting yourself.

Dismissing untested hypotheticals when you are looking for tested solutions is not narrow minded. Trying the most likely solutions then working your way to the unlikely is efficient. I'll use disease diagnosis as an example. A new Dr. sees a patient who has a high temperature and chills. It could be several possibilities. The new Dr. asks a Sr. Dr., "New diseases pop up in Africa all the time, and he was in Africa for a day. Maybe its a new disease?" The Dr. is going to say, "Why don't we first see if it matches a disease we know about first before seeing if its something new?"

Its plausible the patient has a new disease. But we don't know if its possible, as there may very well not be any new disease. So first you start with the most likely, then work your way down. Now if the rancher had tried every reasonable possibility they could think of, like water, food quality, and cow stress, then maybe they could take the substantial cost of moving their cows to a new location. The rancher was not being closed minded or unscientific, they were being practical.

And as a question for yourself, are you trying to find evidence that fits your theory, or are you trying to find evidence that contradicts your theory? Before casting aspersions on the rancher, apply the scientific mentality to your own questions at this time, and see what you come up with. Try to prove yourself wrong, and see if it is impossible.

Maybe this is the case, maybe it's not. We have to "stop the buck" somewhere otherwise we go down an infinite chain of postulates. We don't know enough to say either is the case. — Manuel

Yes, you understand this part then. What I am proposing are plausibilities. Its either "Infinitely Regressive", or "Finitely regressive". We don't know for sure which is real. So what I'm doing is saying, "Lets pretend one is real, what logical conclusions can we reach or not reach?"

An argument could be made for both needing a first cause (or an uncaused cause) or not needing one, in the case the universe is actually infinite. — Manuel

The argument that I'm making is that yes, the universe could be finitely or infinitely regressive, but that there logically can be no cause for why this should be. Many people say, "The universe could not have formed on its own," but my conclusion is, "The universe necessarily formed on its own".

No. The relevance of precision in this case is that precise measurement of Mercury's orbit showed that Newton's theory was not imprecise but wrong. — T Clark

Interestingly enough, Newton wasn't wrong. It was simply not precise enough for large bodies. You can take the theory of relativity and reduce it down to Newton's equation for regular sized bodies. It is evidence that certain equations are useful for particular scales, but breakdown in others.

Depends on how we think of cause. It's not impossible that the universe came into being for no reason or cause. Someone can say that makes no sense at all, but it could be the case for all we know. — Manuel

According to my OP, I conclude that it is logically necessary that the universe came into being for no reason or cause. Do I make a good case for it?

I don't follow the logic of your discussion, but that doesn't matter, since I don't see why this is true. — T Clark

Fair enough, I am presupposing some knowledge here.

Causality is the idea that a snapshot of existence is in the state that it is because of some prior state. Lets use a pool table for example. If I shoot a cue ball into the 8 ball, a certain amount of force is applied to the cue ball, which then transfers to the 8 ball, which then sinks in the right corner pocket.

If we shake this magic 8 ball for a minute, we discover that it moved because of the force applied from the cue ball. In other words, the 8 ball didn't just move itself without any internal or external force. It did not move "simply because it moved". A first cause would be if the 8 ball moved and there was no reason why it should have moved, internally, or externally.

Does that clarify causality? Do you have another take on it?

Y

My post simply shows that "first ... logically necessary" is incoherent. — 180 Proof

You're judging my post based on the title? Isn't that the same as reading the title of a news article, then commenting on it at the bottom of the forum? Come on, you're better than that. The title is just something to get people to click on it and read the post. Feel free to read the post, then let me know if my title was inappropriate.

My advice for serious philosophical conclusions is to heed your own words.

As I’ve said many times, failure to carefully define terms is the primary failing of many of the discussions on the forum. — T Clark

Ask the person who you're debating with what they mean by metaphysics. Get them to define their particular terms. Phrases are digests of complex simple ideas. The act of doing philosophy should be to breaking down those phrases into complex simple terms with the person who you are discussing with. You're not debating the phrase, you're debating the underlying logical components. Those transcend any labels or ideologies.

The universe doesn't give a damn if it follows our logic or not. — Manuel

That's an interesting conclusion. If you read it and understood the premise, I would say it was clever. Feel free to explain why its clever within the confines of the OP, and I'll grant it.

Aw, don't do me like that 180 Proof. I usually love your wit and insight. Let me get you into the fun version of yourself.

So technically, no, a first number is not logically necessary. Considering we can have negative numbers, and the creation of numbers is a formula that can be applied without limitation, there is no "first" number.

First integer? Sure, that would be one. Of course, years later, 0 was invented, and that could be argued as the "first" integer. So would it be the first created integer, or the first integer in numeric order?

In otherwords, even though I considered your post silly, I addressed it seriously for fun. Do the same to my post please.

In the case of magnetism and cows drinking, it is also a conspiracy to just state that cows are not affected in their drinking behavior by magnetic fields. I offered an article which showed that cows are affected by such a field, which was denied from the start, and everything suggesting it could be the case was thrown of the table. — Verdi

Just to be clear on specifics, you mentioned there was an article that suggested cows were affected by magnetic fields. Was it a scientific article? Did it conclude that it would affect how they drank water? Did you link that article to the person so they could read it themself?

If you answered "No" to any of those, then the other person was in their rights for saying, "That doesn't apply to my situation." Scientific discovery requires a massive amount of time to conclude, and the average lay person should not be expected to consider all plausibilities. If I claimed unicorns caused the cows to drink less water, but did not provide a legitimate scientific paper, any person would be within their rights to dismiss it. A conspiracy goes out of its way to prove an extremely unlikely scenario. A dismissal of an extremely unlikely scenario prior to examining all other much more likely scenarios first is simply an efficient use of time while betting on more favorable odds.

We cannot challenge you on your accusation, because you have not defined what "Love" is first. You could be thinking of a definition that is different from the rest of us. Think about what you believe love is as a definition first. If you cannot think of one, then you really have the question, "What is love?" I'll keep an eye out for your answer.

A look at science can help us identify a conspiracy. Science seeks to disprove its hypothesis. If for example I say, "Cows do not drink water at this location because of a change in the magnetic field," then I would set up an experiment to try to disprove this, NOT prove it. You can try to disprove it by setting up several different patches of cows in different magnetic fields around the world, while ensuring all other variables like "Water quality, stress of the cows, food quality, etc" are all kept the same. As you think of more things that could disprove your hypothesis, you add more experiments.

A conspiracy does not seek to disprove its own theory, but only looks at things that give evidence to or prove its theory. They take a compass, see that the magnetic field is different from "normal", and conclude that must be why the cows are drinking less. They don't check any other evidence that might disprove the theory, such as water quality, food quality, etc. They have a conclusion they WANT to reach, and only seek evidence that confirms that conclusion while throwing away, or not looking for any evidence that might disprove what they want to believe.

It's like saying the more precise I want to be about what good is in (say) utilitarianism, the more likely it is that I'll have to abandon utilitarianism and develop a totally novel theory that doesn't look anything like utilitarianism. — TheMadFool

You have made a step into the next level of philosophical thinking. Yes, the reality of many "ideologies" is they are imprecise but easy to digest ideas to be used as guidelines. They work for general use, but begin to fail when you want clarifications on specifics. Newton's theory of gravity is a fantastic example. Newton's gravity works for almost all of our daily experiences on Earth with bodies to our scale. It begins to break down when bodies become incredibly large, like solar systems, or incredibly small, like the sub atomic level.

Philosophy is the same. Utilitarianism is fine as a general ideology for perhaps your day to day thinking and living. But when greater precision is needed, when the scale changes, more questions than answers begin to form.

A belief in ideologies is for the beginners of philosophy. It is for the casual thinker that needs a rationale or inspiration to live or change the way they live. Just as the true physicist understands that the layman's concept of physics is not functional for in depth discoveries, and that it is merely an attempt to explain what is not fully translatable to English, so does the true philosopher understand ideologies are digests, and ultimately worthless labels when you are ready to dive into the deep logic underpining their conclusions.

You might want to hear from my experiences. I have a master's in philosophy. You know what I do years later? I program.

First, do not go into philosophy as a field if you merely "like it". If you like reading philosophy, you are a fan. A fan is not a career. Can you think of new philosophy? Can you constantly write papers at extremely high quality to ensure you don't get fired? Are you willing to get a Phd, work at a pauper's salary for years until you MIGHT get that lucky teaching job halfway across the country for a tradesman's salary?

I say this, because many people go into the field thinking its "easy". It is NOT easy. It is not about being a fan of philosophy. It is about being a person who loves to think on philosophical subjects, even at personal financial detriment. Even when the prospect for failure is high.

Once you get to the master's/ Phd level, you will begin to realize how stilted the field also is. You will be forced to read and write on people who have been disproven for years. You will be discouraged to write your own philosophy. You will be forced to tie it to ancient writings that no longer apply to today's world. It is a very traditional field, and unwelcoming to thought's that are generate purely on your own.

You may here many people say, "Do what you love as a career." That is absolute horse manure stated by people who are financially successful or at the top of their career after years of work and luck. It ignores the mountain of bodies behind those people who could not make it and would have had a MUCH better life if they had picked a career based on things like "Demand in the marketplace, career prospects, salary, quality of life, etc."

Only go into philosophy if it is a passion. If you write philosophy on your own for hours at a time, eager to think about the problems that people have not solved for centuries. Eager to be your own worst critic, and is NOT impressed by your own cleverness or intelligence. Be honest with yourself, and make sure you're not considering at "fun" or an "easy out". You know yourself.

And finally, if you think, "Well I don't need to be outstanding, I can just be mediocre or slightly above average", you will not succeed. There are plenty of jobs you can be mediocre in or slightly above average and live well. Philosophy is not one of them.

Prishon, defining things does not destroy the thing itself. In fact, if you find you cannot define something, it's an indicator that you need to think carefully about what you are saying, or that the idea is fiction, and does not exist.

Again, the examples are fine, but you haven't defined what you mean by reality. That means I am left to draw my own conclusions by what you mean, and I might be off.

It seems to me you are describing descriptions of reality invented by humans. These descriptions do not necessarily represent reality, as reality is generally known as what simply exists. That's why it's important for you to define what YOU mean by reality, as I may not be addressing your intentions.

Each are tools that are used for specific problems based on the culture and needs of your society. Free markets at their extreme are simply the idea that I can sell anything I want to anyone else without regulation or taxes.
A friend says, "Hey, mind selling me that coffee mug?" I say, "Sure, 3 dollars", and we both have full free will to accept, amend, or reject the trade.
This is a pretty good thing. Imagine a world in which I had to also add 8% tax, fill out a form and receipt, and make sure the cup passed some standard regulation before offer of sale.
Now does a completely free market scale as you introduce more people? Of COURSE not. But when we can keep aspects of free markets where possible, it makes trade more manageable for the seller. Since its less work to sell, less time and effort is needed to do business, thus increasing profits.

I appreciate the examples, but you still need to provide a definition so that we can have a foundation of conversation to stand on. Why are they separate realities? What makes a reality, a reality?

Yes, you can deny the claim that everything must have a prior cause, because it cannot be proven that everything has a prior cause. In fact, we can conclude the opposite.
Let us say the universe is full of infinitely regressive causality. It's existed infinitely versus having a finite starting point. This universe is the sum of everything. All possible worlds, universes, God's etc. We cannot introduce anything outside of this, it's everything that exists.
One question springs to mind. Why does that universe exist as is? Surely we can imagine things existing differently. But there is nothing outside of this infinite universe. Any outside cause you want to introduce is merged within the set, and we arrive at the same question again.
The answer is simple. This universe is the way it is, because it is. There is no outside reason. It exists, because it does. It is an uncaused universe not bound to any rules outside of itself. Since this is concluded with an infinite universe, and the same conclusion happens with a finite universe, we can only conclude that the reason for any universe existing boils down to the fact that it exists. The origin of any universes existence, is uncaused. This is the only logical conclusion we can arrive at.

To answer your question, could you define what you mean by a reality? An example of at least two types that fit your definition would be nice.

First, I have to say your post is absolutely fantastic. While many atheists may feel like you, it seems rare that they voice such ideas.

So are we sure that world would be a better place without religions?! — dimosthenis9

If you gonna make people stop believing in religions then WHAT could replace God? — dimosthenis9

Great questions. A lot of times people leap on the moral aspect of religion. I think that what is even stronger than the moral aspect of religion, is the social element of religion. Religion gives you community, belonginess, and a greater purpose not only for you, but those around you. It encourages you to reach out to other people and bring them to the light. It is a place you can reach out to for emotional support.

I think that's what some atheists miss when they focus on the "logic" of a religion. They'll see a religion do something immoral, and wonder why anyone would do that. "Surely they must be stupid!" they think. I don't think atheists are any more intelligent than people who believe in a religion. What they are, is more independent. They don't necessarily need a crowd of people around them.

But many people do. They want the support group. The social safety net. To sing in the choir. To feel like they are part of not just some abstract plan that is greater than themselves, but the real and present group of people that they are attending and finding friends with. To question God is to question those bonds. To risk losing the place you might find solace in. That is very hard for people to leave.

Presently, there is no organized social alternative to this. I believe the internet has opened a way for people to socialize more easily, and the anonymity can replace the need for a place to confide in one's "sins". Still, it lacks the human touch. The weekly meeting that is virtually free to no cost to personally attend for most people.

Could we create an alternative to this? Perhaps an enterprising person could. The irony of course is since many atheists are independent and don't need that social group as much, they're less likely to form and congregate a large enough group that could gain the attention it needs as a viable alternative to church.

Again, great discussion topic.

Suppose there's a truth regarding, say, God in a 3D world. Call this G. We, in our 2D world, can only see shadows of G. Theists believe God exists (square shadow) and atheists believe God doesn't exist (circle shadow). Put the two parties on the same stage and we have a contradiction: God exists & God doesn't exist (square circle). — TheMadFool

That's still not a contradiction though. That is a contradiction of beliefs, but not of facts. In the theists case, there is a God. But honestly, neither the atheists nor theists know of God, because they can only see parts.

In their particular case, the flashes of God revealing themselves to people would be the only thing they could agree exists. Atheists cannot deny it exists if its observable, but they might call it something different than a theist would. A theist might say its God, an atheist might say its the Goldbring effect. Each might have some extra beliefs or connotations they attach to the God parts, but at the end of the day, the only thing they really know are that these things exist.

Its like seeing part of a square, and saying you know a square. You can't know what a square is until you see it, and you define it in a way that is provable and repeatable. The 2D shapes are not different people's or cultures opinions of squares or circles either. They are clearly defined and provable entities. One person might say, "Squares come from God," and another might say, "Squares are a natural formation," but all of that is irrelevant for what IS, and that is that it is a square.

Perspective merely gives you a portion of what you can know. When you claim the knowledge of what you have gives you knowledge outside of your perspective, that is a failure of reasoning and knowledge, not a contradiction with another view point.

But I am a person who believes that contradictions are indicators of what is not real. Reality has no contradictions. Apparent contradictions are when a person is confused or misinformed about reality. I believe you either have the truth, a portion of the truth, or you hold beliefs which aren't true. Two people cannot hold two contradictory truths. One is right, or both are wrong. I see the poetry in what you mean by Anekantavada, but it does not hold up on technical scrutiny.

Ha ha! This reminds me of something that happened in a freshman philosophy class. The lecturer was a graduate student, and had commented that a square circle was something impossible. I thought this to be wrong, so proceeded to draw a rounded square. I commented that I didn't think it was impossible and showed them the picture. They just got mad and dismissed it.

Later I realized that we can make up whatever words we want from our personal or societal context to represent reality. Words are shorthand for reality, and to discuss contradiction in terms, we must first understand the full meaning of reality behind the words. For example, my "rounded squared" could be labeled as a "Square circle" if I and others around me thought that was an acceptable definition. But that is all it would be, a squarish figure that was rounded.

In the case of the philosophical square circle, we are looking at the geometric proved definitions of 2D objects. When the idea of a "square circle" is presented, its really shorthand for, "A geometrically proven and defined 2D object that is both a square and a circle at the same time." Of course that cannot exist.

Now in your case of perspective, you're introducing a 3D object. But that does not fit the original definition's tie to reality, that it is only a 2D object. Could we call your 3D object's perspective a "square circle"? Sure, we can call anything, anything within a context. But is that the same as the context of the philosophical square circle argument in 2D geometry? No.

My OP is not meant to completely rebut The Problem of Evil, but just provide an answer to what I think is its strength. I always saw (as I think most proponents do) the strength of The Problem of Evil in showing people being left worse off - in the examples of people being tortured and ravaged by disease, alarmingly so. If the premise that the bad will be made up for is accepted, said people would not be worse off, thus The Problem of Evil is more a technical problem, which I think such defences as the Free Will Defence will have a much easier job in dealing with. I realise very few people will agree with me that the horrifying "evils" of life would be made up for, and that's what I wanted to address. — Down The Rabbit Hole

If you fully understand what the problem of evil is from my earlier post, then the discussion is done. What you are positing is that God is limited. There is nothing wrong with this. If God is limited, then evil can exist for several reasons.

a. Evil cannot be fully eliminated
b. Evil is necessary for a greater good
c. God is making the best of the situation
d. (Your example) God creates an afterlife of infinite good after you die to make up for the evil you experience while you live.

We can come up for all sorts of reasons how God handles evil and justifications why evil exists if we understand that God is limited. None of these are the problem of evil. There is only an issue if you want to state that God can do anything, is perfectly good, and perfectly omniscient.

If you desire that God is the three omni's, then there is also no further discussion. If God can do anything, he can create a universe of infinite good without any evil. That is inherently better than a world of finite evil with infinite good afterward. This is not debatable.

Your proposal does not solve the problem of evil. Your proposal is a conjecture of how a limited God handles evil in the world, which again, is not actually a problem at all. With a limited God, there is ironically no limit to the proposals of how and why God handles evil in the world, as they are all conjectures. For any of them, the answer is, "Could be", and that's really it.

My case is built upon the premise that the good will infinitely make up for the "bad". Thus the "bad" won't really be bad for those experiencing it.

Are you saying the good cannot make up for the bad? Or are you making the same point as InPitzotl that even if the "bad" can be made up for it still technically exists? — Down The Rabbit Hole

What I'm trying to point out, is it does not solve the problem of evil. I think I understand where you are coming from. You may be under the impression that if there is evil, God cannot exist. That's not the problem. The problem is an omniscient, omnibenevolent, all powerful God cannot exist.

But lets break down the technicalities to something simple. Imagine that a God existed that could do anything. If it were as good as possible, and we could quantify "goodness", it would create a world in which the greatest amount of goodness could exist. Some people claim that there is a God that can do literally anything and is also perfectly good. The fact that evil exists, is the problem of evil for a God that can do anything.

Your argument does not get around the philosophical problem of evil, because God is introducing some evil, even if there is infinite goodness afterward. A being which could do anything, and is perfectly good, would not allow even the slightest bit of evil in the world. Before you say, "Well maybe God has to for greater good," we already established that this particular God could do ANYTHING. Meaning there is not rule or need for evil to exist at all for the greatest good to be, because God doesn't follow any rules.

The problem of evil is really more a lesson about being careful with your definitions. Definitions that are broad and without limit will run into problems in philosophy. If a God exists, that God may be more powerful than we can comprehend but it cannot do everything. The problem of evil is a contradiction to be learned from, not to be solved.

I think it's perfectly benevolent to allow harm that for all practical purposes will not have existed. The subject of the harm will have the same net experience as those that would not have been subjected to any harm. — Down The Rabbit Hole

That is because you are not an omnibenevolent being. An all benevolent and omniscient being would not round the numbers. Zero evil is the only thing an all benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent being could tolerate.

The only way the problem of evil makes sense is if God is limited in some way.

However, it can also be misleading. It may give the impression that uncertainty arises only when we lumbering experimenters meddle with things. This is not true. Uncertainty is built into the wave structure of quantum mechanics and exists whether or not we carry out some clumsy measurement. — Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos

A great addition.

The basic idea seems to be certain quantum systems can be frozen if observed in a certain way i.e. the system will fail to evolve. Yet, such systems are evolving which implies NO ONE IS WATCHING!

If God did exist, he would be observing every single particle in this universe and that would have led to the Quantum Zeno Effect but since quantum systems do evolve, GOD DOES NOT EXIST! — TheMadFool

My understanding of quantum mechanics is its not an observer that causes outcomes, its active measurement. All measurement at that level requires bouncing particles off of other particles. Our instruments that we use to measure are not effective enough to not affect the thing we are measuring. If you bounce a ping pong ball off a bowling ball, the bowling ball won't be very affected. But bounce a bowling ball off of a ping pong ball, and the ping pong ball is affected greatly.

But if I simply use my eyeballs to look at quantum realities around me, you'll notice that I'm not affecting the outcome in the slightest. When introducing a fantastical being such as God, we can also posit that God is able to know what is happening on a quantum level without altering the outcome of that quantum pathing. After all, God is not limited by out instrumentation.

Clever, but it doesn't quite work. The problem of evil comes about because of a misuse of terms to describe God. If you describe God as being able to do absolutely anything, and God is supposed to be perfectly good, and perfectly all knowing, you create some problems.

One of them is declaring that evil is a sin, and against God. In that case, why would God allow evil at all? Its a contradiction. It doesn't matter if you compare a limited amount of time to the infinite afterlife.
A perfectly good, being that can do absolutely anything just wouldn't create evil.

Of course, if you change it to mean, "God is the most powerful, most knowledgeable and most omniscient being possible in existence," then the problem of evil disappears. In that case God has limitations, and if God has limitiations, its understandable why evil is in the world, and God asks people not to commit it.

Looking at history, I think there are a couple of key ingredients to avoid war.

1. Some type of unified identity.

A "family", "town", "state" or "country" are ways of belonging to a group. If we could get people to belong to the "human race" as the most important group, we would diminish the desire for violence. This is where things like philosophy and religion can be extremely useful. Politically, the EU and the UN are fantastic ways to bind countries together as "the people of planet Earth".

2. Respect and assistance towards others in need

Violence is resorted to when people are desperate and not getting a certain quality of life. If you have that life, and others don't, others are going to want to take it from you if you don't share.

3. Creating a culture of morality that prevents the immoral and power hungry from obtaining positions of leadership

It can be politically and personally profitable for leadership to go to war. When you can get other people to die for you, it requires someone of personal integrity and responsibility to be at the helm.

4. Creating situations with others of an alternative identity that is mutually profitable.

In the case in which identities cannot be unified, a form of trade or reciprocal benefit is needed to make war unprofitable. If both sides do not interact profitably, someone in power may start to be tempted in outright taking from the "other" tribe.

I'm sure there's more. I understand you're looking at more high level specifics, but the underlying lower level thoughts can be a guide to the higher specific implementation.

But is this a perfect simulation? In the first case it seems the computer simulated that the person would drink the poison "if they were not told a simulation showed they would drink the poison." If the computer also included in the simulation that the person would drink the poison, even when told they would drink the poison, then if the simulation was perfect, they would.

This is a paradox of saying something is a perfect simulation, then creating a situation in which the simulation is imperfect. If its a perfect simulation, then there are no contradictions, and no human choice could alter what the computer predicted. If the computer simulated that a person would drink the poison, if they were told the computer stated they would drink the poison, but the person did not, then we would know the computer could not perfectly simulate the world.

Essentially to sum it up, you are using the definition of "perfect", then inventing situations in which it is imperfect. That's not a paradox, its just a contradiction of terms.

MWI is a level 3 classification scheme of multiverse theory....
— Philosophim

...according to Max Tegmark's classificatory scheme, which is shared by practically nobody.

I was replying to fishfry's link. He linked me that, so I assume he found that to be a valid source. If you would like to enter the conversation, feel free. If Max Tegmark's scheme is wrong, who's scheme is right?

MWI is a unicorn theory
— Philosophim

I think it's all nonsense on stilts, but who am I? — Wayfarer

So one in agreement with unicorn theory then! But I want to give fishfry a chance to refute it.

The multiverse theory says that the universe consists of "bubble universes" that branch off and are causally independent of each other. Entirely different theory. Nothing to do with quantum branching. It's a cosmological theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse — fishfry

If you read the wiki article you linked, you'll see that MWI is a level 3 classification scheme of multiverse theory. I was correct then.

You seem to have side stepped the larger issue I made however. In the end, MWI is a unicorn theory. Do you have an answer for this?

Could well be. But for purposes of this discussion, please note that multiverse theory and the many-worlds interpretation are two entirely different speculative theories. — fishfry

Mind explaining how? As far as the specifics go, my understanding of many worlds interpretation is that all quantum states exist in some type of branching world or universe. This is just a multiverse theory. All multiverse theories fail at their core, because they are pure speculation without evidence.

Put a horn on a horse, and that sounds plausible. Spin the idea that measurement of quantum objects prevents us from knowing another aspect about that quantum object, and say that all possible quantum entities could exist, and it sounds plausible. But at the end of the day, its all speculation if you can't prove one shred of evidence that such a thing can actually exist.

I understand you might be interested in the higher levels of MWI speculations, but at the end of the day its like speculating whether a unicorn is able to magically heal wounds, or cast spells so it can fly. Its all moot until you can prove a unicorn exists.

Multiverse theory is the same as unicorn theory. No one has found a unicorn yet, and no one has found a different universe yet. As such, they are just postulates of imagination, no more.

I don't think we can ever remove evil entirely, just diminish its degree. If good is "more existence" and evil is "less existence", then good and evil are comparisons. While Covid is terrible, it doesn't approach the millions of deaths from pandemics in the past. Our work into medical science has paid off. While nuclear weapons are excessively destructive, that excessiveness also has diminished the number of wars in the world, and preserved more human life.

Finally, while the climate is definitely on a course to either hellish heat, or a lethal change in oxygen levels in the air, much of our technology is more energy efficient, and we are focusing on greener alternatives. Fighting with evil is a constant war for the betterment of the world.

Glad to chat with you again Jack, glad you've been well. To me, good is what we "ought" to do, and evil is what we "ought not to do". In other words, "This should exist, and this should not." But why do we think certain things should exist while others do not? Taking it from a purely human standpoint, we would come up with a myriad of opinion. That won't do. We need something more concrete. Something more primitive.

Why should humans exist at all? Which then I can say, why should life exist at all? Which leads to, why should anything exist at all? And there is our final question, the base upon which we can build our logic. An interesting fact, is that much of the "substance" that resulted form the big bang is gone now. After billions of years, its cancelled out or gone the way of entropy. But not the matter that's stuck around. That stuff, which we're made of, has stubbornly refused to go into the dark. That matter, is what life is built off of. That matter, is what we are built off of. And that existence, is what ethics is built off of.

The matter around us continually seeks to remain as it is. Forces jostle around, elections shift and molecules combine and break apart, but the underlying matter and energy remain. Life is a combination of matter that continues to seek its own continuation, even in the face of outside forces. Thus the prime directive is, "Should I continue to exist?" Life does with rudimentary intelligence. Humans come along and can see how it is. They can decide. Should I continue to exist? Most of us choose yes. That is good. Existence is good.

You also might realize that existence extends outside of yourself. And there is existence within interacting with yourself, and other existences. A fly alone and a human alone are two existences, but when they come together, they create a third interaction of existence that could not be otherwise. You see it in the atoms that form into different molecules. The interactions of so many different expressions of that existence. This is good as well.

At that point you might realize that if one can preserve one's own existence, and promote other existences where you can, then that would create more existence, and thus more good. Sometimes there must be destruction, or a change in the makeup of matter to preserve some existences over others. Life must continue to obtain energy to live, which means something else must lose it in return. What must exist and what must be destroyed are the constant calculus of morality.

I have a feeling no one person can answer that calculus. I have a feeling there is no one theory that will apply to one situation, but to many situations. The one thing that I feel confident in, is the underlying goal and result of all of those theories should be to preserve and/or create as much existence as possible.