While the questions posed are interesting in their own right, the point of this thread is not to discuss the answer, but whether the framework (story, if you will) in which the question is posed is meaningful to the way in which we do philosophy. When we inherit a tradition, are we doomed to its faults or limited by its ambition? Putting aside the quality of why one might prefer the Buddhist answer to the Western one, how do we evaluate, philosophically, the limits of our own intellectual garden and evaluate whether we wouldn't be better off being replanted somewhere else? — Ennui Elucidator

Perfect. To me, this is one of the essences of philosophy. Question everything. Especially the bases you rest your assumptions on. We should be working to get to the foundation of thoughts and questions, not continuing to discuss incomplete and flawed frameworks laid out to us by people from a different era.

True randomness would be me rolling some dice and them turning into Santa Clause.
— Philosophim
This was random enough to make me smile. — mentos987

Ha ha! I'm glad. Philosophy should be fun too. :)

If true randomness exist and we are subjected to it constantly, would there not be new "first causes" being created all the time? — mentos987

There could be, absolutely. There is nothing that indicates that it would suddenly end. One such randomness is that some or many first causes happen, then nothing happens for centuries. Or it could be that there are first causes happening here and all over the universe, but they're so small, short lived, ineffectual, or so outside of our location that we don't notice them.

If we can trace back different happenings back to a true randomness, and there are an infinite amount of true randomness. Would that not mean that there is an infinite amount of "first causes"? — mentos987

Its one of an infinite possibilities. Assuming that a first cause has no reason for its being, we can assume that anything could happen. We can also conclude that no one thing has a greater chance of happening than another, because that would imply some rule or limitation. Meaning all things could happen, and all would have an equal chance of being.

So we could have a universe in which infinite first causes happen over infinite time. Or a universe where there's no first causes for centuries, then one thing explodes into existence. Or...add your imagination. All have an equal chance of happening, so there's no certainty that any one would necessarily happen. All we can do is look at our universe as it is today to see what happened, and keep an eye out for events that are unexplained as its definitely plausible that first causes can still happen today.

Surely that is context dependent though. — NotAristotle

The idea that it was a conscious supernatural being that caused it is introducing a level of complexity that should not be considered until the other two are ruled out. Even then, you would need concrete proof that such a being existed and caused the miracle. — Philosophim

Basically I'm noting that there needs to be evidence of a miracle, and that this requires a methodical approach. Wine eventually turns into vinegar if its too old. That happens independently from a conscious intent. First we need to see if wine can naturally turn into coffee given certain conditions. Then we would check if those conditions were caused by a human, which we already know can exist. If caused by a human, we can learn how they did it. If we are not aware of any natural process, nor can find any human did it, then we seek to see how the process can occur at all.

Even ruling that out, none of this indicates a supernatural conscious being. This is a "God of the gaps" fallacy. There is no logical link between not understanding how something happened and suddenly implying some supernatural being beyond our understanding must have caused it.

The reliance on excessive vocabulary and technical jargon is the desperate cry for relevance and convincing others of its own importance. The more one relies on esoteric vocabulary, the more unnecessarily complex the idea becomes. This can give the illusion of complexity and intelligence where it does not exist. Many new people fall into this trap as they try to learn the lingo, but those with insight see through all the bs.

I would argue this has come about because back then philosophy was a way of life, while today it has become a profession. Universities require that philosophy professors publish 'something'. As such the profession does not drive people towards meaningful discussions or discoveries, but production for its own sake. When one does not have anything meaningful to say, an easy way out of this is to write something that 'sounds' meaningful. Perhaps something that shows mastery over someone without a Phd.

I say this as someone who has participated in philosophy with the one time intent to become a professor. The institution of philosophy is a bunch of people desperate to justify their own job, all the while pushing people to learn 'the art of publishing' which is not about new ideas, but learning to find what publishers are looking for as well as modern trends. Original ideas that are not forcibly tied to some other famous philosopher are discouraged and rejected. It is not a place of open thought, but stifled institutionalism.

Over time radioactive decay behaves in a statistically predictable manner, but each event is completely random and uncaused. — EricH

This is a misunderstanding of statistics. It is not truly random and uncaused. We know the causes of radioactive decay. The use of statistics and chance is to give us an approximation of general decay over time when we cannot measure each nucleus individually. Just like a dice roll is not truly random. Its the combination of many forces we do not have the capability to calculate. But we do know it can only be 1 of six outcomes, and that the variation of even one of these forces can result in a different outcome.

True randomness would be me rolling some dice and them turning into Santa Clause. True randomness has absolutely no limitation or law that states, "This must be or is more inclined to happen".

You may be right that OPs version of causality requires determinism.
— mentos987
Agree. — EricH

No, it does not. When something is a first cause, it is an uncaused thing which then enters into causality. There is no limitation as to what a first cause could be, as it has no prior explanation for its being. It is unlinked from determinism as to why it exists. However, once it exists, its interactions with other existences then involve causality, or determinism. Determinism is 100% the result of anything which has laws or limitations. Determinism does not exist to cause a first cause to be.

I think you can simplify this down further. First you need to demonstrate a supernatural being is actually possible. A 'miracle', or a violation of the known laws of physics does not necessarily lead to a supernatural being.

Two basic alternatives are:

1. Our understanding of physical laws was incomplete.
2. It simply happened. No other explanation behind it.

The idea that it was a conscious supernatural being that caused it is introducing a level of complexity that should not be considered until the other two are ruled out. Even then, you would need concrete proof that such a being existed and caused the miracle.

Although I still do not have a firm grasp on your ethical theory, I do commend you for your creativity; as this is very outside of the box! One of the many reasons I enjoy our conversations...(: — Bob Ross

I appreciate it! I often feel my outside of the box philosophy is unapproachable for many people. I had a few professors in the past who were interested, but mostly I've found people have difficulty engaging with something new. It is very refreshing to find people who are willing to engage in thinking about something new. I am grateful. :)

So, ‘X is preferable to Y’ does not entail, by my lights, that ‘there ought to be as much X as possible’. If I prefer vanilla to chocolate ice cream, there is no entailment here such that I should create as much vanilla as possible. — Bob Ross

A good point, and its probably time that we tackle what is moral vs what is a preference. Something we have a preference for is a satisfaction of emotional desires. This is not the same as a moral outcome. While in English we can say, "X is preferable" that has a different connation in the moral sense then in a "Where should I go to dinner" sense. To avoid this overlap, we should not use 'should' and 'preferable' together to avoid an emotional connotation.

To be clear, only over an infinite period of time and space. In a finite period of time and space, order will generate overall more existence.

I don’t see why this is true. Over interval [1, 50] years a chaotic world will have more ‘new identities’, ‘parts’, and ‘relations’. Order produces a system where things do not sporadically get created: if we only procreate when we are financially stable vs. whenever we want for whatever reason we want, then the latter will produce more existent entities (and relations and what not) than the former. Chaos will always be better in your view. — Bob Ross

No, and we can use statistics to demonstrate why. Recall that chaos means anything can happen. Which could mean that in 50 years the range between nothing happening vs everything happening exists. Not only this, this can vary per time tick. Its simply an unknown gamble. But if we were able to create a stable and steady grouping of existence over time, we would come up with a certain set of existence that in many cases, would be more existence than that of a chaotic set.

Does that mean that there could be a chaotic set that would have more existence overall? Yes, but we cannot control chaos. If we could, it really wouldn't be chaos.

Sure, if we are just asking which is better under your view and everything else being equal, then 10 for an hour is better. This is not the pressing issue with the theory though. — Bob Ross

Alright, if there doesn't seem to be much wrong with the basics prima facia, then I think its time to go to the next step, life. First, what is life? Life is not separate from the universe, but one expression of a universe. Lets start small. A single cell vs a rock. First, we'll set it up to have the same comparative amount of molecules, so we can finally get outside of this basic area. What we're more interested in right now is the internal expressions of existence within that rock and cell.

Comparing the internal interactions of existence of a single cell to a rock, its pretty self evident which one has more interactions and potential existence. Perhaps someone with hours to spare could do a specific count, but I feel its 'uncountably' so. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41576-020-00292-x

What we can determine is that life is the highest concentration of expressed and potential existence when compared to plain chemical reactions or molecular grouping. Within one cell contains multiple chemical interactions as well as groupings. The other difference between a cell and a chemical reaction is a chemical reaction burns itself out over time. For the equivalent mass, a single cell continues to renew this chemical reaction over days to years. Over the limited span of the cell, we have an incredible concentration of existence.

As such, we can start safely making general assertions based off of this reasoning. The important thing is to never forget how this basis is made. Within the context of flat comparison and introducing no other variables, life will be a more condensed and longer lasting existence per mass. Meaning from our 'objective' morality, life is more concentrated existence than non-life in this context.

Now does this mean everything should become living and we cease to have rocks? No. Recall that as a general rule, having varieties of existence that can potentially interact with one another is more overall potential existence than one solitary type of existence. Further, there are limitations to life. Life needs a rock to stand on, and enough rocks to form enough gravity to keep an atmosphere, etc. All the non-life is necessary to produce life, and life constantly interacts with non-life creating more existence then it floating in a void.

Of course, life has another potential problem. To sustain its chemical reactions, it must constantly resupply itself with material needed for this. Overtime, if our single cells continue to multiply indefinitely, it will use up all of the inorganic resources, and life will cease entirely. What would be better if is life was in a system where resources were renewed as long as possible, or there was a check on its growth. After all, existence is measured over time, not just in an instance. What we want is the greatest possible existence over the limited time we have.

Nature has interestingly enough, solved this problem. Predators evolved out of matter, or living organisms that break down other living organisms. It turns out that life evolved to consume the waste products of one life, then generate waste products that the original life also uses! Thus plants consume carbon dioxide and release oxygen while animals consume oxygen and release carbon dioxide. So we can look at the cycle of basic life and its interplay and state that its overall goal is better than an alternative where only one life exists, consumes everything, then dies.

Alright, that's enough for now. I'm not addressing humans yet, because this is the next step. See what you think about this so far! Once we're done, the next step is finally humans, I promise. :)

Causation need not be a rule for the universe that is on a layer on top of ours. Time, gravity, individuals, energy and causation could all be concepts exclusive to our universe. — mentos987

If nothing caused it, then it would be a first cause. A first cause has no prior explanation for its existence, it simply is. So you see, these suppositions don't change anything.

Interesting take urcarr! I posted a theory of knowledge a while back here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1
You can check the summary from Cerulean-Lawrence below my inital post, its spot on.

To quickly note the relevance here, I basically determine that the core foundation of knowledge is our ability to 'discretely experience'. Discrete is to take many and make it one. I believe it is the origin of math. Of course, though we can create a discrete identity, it must be applied to reality for confirmation. Thus while we can construct discrete abstracts or 'ones' in our head, to test the accuracy of this measure it must be applied outside of ourselves.

Sorry for the delay in answering.

I'm clearly missing something. The conclusion that I get from reading these two statements is that there exists in the physical universe multiple "first causes". I.e., all those atoms that come into existence via radioactive decay have no prior cause for their creation, therefore they are all "first causes"? — EricH

If there truly was no prior cause, then yes. I'm fairly certain that radioactive decay has pretty clear causes though.

I think a 4th option would be that you follow the chain of causation as far back as you can and then find out that the next causation source exists in a universe a layer above ours. Such a universe would not necessarily follow our laws of causation and could be rather unknowable. — mentos987

That's part of the set of causation. Once we introduce a fourth universe, there's still the question of, "What caused that fourth universe?"

Look at it this way.

A = a finite set of causality. We go down a chain of causality until there's nothing prior.
B = a set of infinite regressive causality. It never ends.

What caused A? It just is, there's no prior explanation for it.
What caused B? It just is, there's no prior explanation for it.

First Cause arguments open the door to inferences of Creator Gods, that 180's belief system explicitly excludes. Therefore, Atheistic worldviews must assume, as an implicit axiom, that the universe itself is eternal, without beginning or end. In which case, there is no need for a First Cause. — Gnomon

Yes, I've seen this many times. Its incredibly limiting to thought as well. What atheists can realize is that an acausal universe may open God as one of infinite possibilities, but not a necessity. As such they're neglecting acausal possibilities that don't involve a God. Great post Gnomon!

But in the real world a host of causal "forces" may be in play at each step, and somehow they must average out to prolong the expansion. Here is an attempt to corral those forces in the simplest mathematical structures. — jgill

100% agree, and this does not violate that conclusion. In the case of infinite causality, there's still the question of, "What caused an infinite set of causality to be?" There's nothing prior to it, it simply is.

And this lands you, at least prima facie, in a super counter-intuitive moral position. That’s my worry. Sure, it could still be true and be super counter-intuitive; but no one is going to accept that we have create as many things as we can. — Bob Ross

Agreed. Once we get past the basic matter issue and onto people however, I think you'll see how this works. Just one step at a time so we don't have to keep going back.

I don’t see how B is better. I get that 3 is better than 2 if #1 (that I quoted above), but this makes me question how you derived that more existence is better from existence is good: could you elaborate?
This may just be the ambiguity in “existence is good”. What does it mean for existence itself to be good? Are you just saying “existence is preferable to non-existence”? — Bob Ross

Yes, very good question. For existence to be good, it means there should be existence. So yes, it is preferable to non-existence. And that's it. That's all we have to go on! If existence is preferable to non-existence, then 3 existence is preferable to 2 existence because in the world of two existence, we have an existence deficit (or non-existence comparison) of 1.

Its not something I feel that's proven, its more of a consequence of the foundation. The only time where we start judging whether existence can be 'bad' is in the case of its expressions. For example, lets say we had a world of 2 existence versus a world of 3 existence, but 1 of those existences in the 3 world could annihilate all existence permanently. Over the course of time, the annihilation would cause an overall decrease in actual and expressed existence than in the 2 existence world.

Like, in number? What constitutes “most existence”? Number of “material” and “expressive” existent entities? — Bob Ross

There are a few points I've muddled out and I'm not completely sold on it yet. I definitely want to hear your thoughts on the matter here as this is new. To my mind, I've never encountered any philosophy like this, so we're really thinking on this ourselves without outside references.

1. Existence as 'the parts'. This is the lego section. We can have a lot of different legos that can be built and broken down again. Legos themselves are not really further divisible. In the technical sense, I'm not sure if base matter can be 'broken'. For our purposes I don't think that's important. We're just referring to Aristotelean atoms, the smallest sets of matter we can have.

2. Existence as 'relations'. This is one lego part in relation to another. It can be an inch or a mile away from another part. It can collide and bump into another part. Relations can be changed, thus allowing us to observe time.

3. Existence as 'new identities'. An existence's expression is how it can interact with other 'legos' to create new 'identities'. An identity is a combination of legos that has an entirely new function from just a couple of legos touching. For example, you can have a lot of metal atoms together, but shape it into an engine and its something more than 'just a bunch of metal'. At an atomic level, this would be molecules or bonding between atoms to create large scale physical structures like well, a sheet of metal.

When an existence becomes part of a new identity, its relation with other existences may change. Sodium and Chloride will kill you if you ingest them separately, but their identity of salt, is pretty tasty.

These of course are meant to be very broad categories, as the complexity with just this can start to become overwhelming.

So this section, I don’t think, answered my worry: isn’t this kind of pure chaos you described the best possible reality in your view? This, again, goes against all moral intuitions I have (: You are advocating for the good being destruction and construction alike. — Bob Ross

To be clear, only over an infinite period of time and space. In a finite period of time and space, order will generate overall more existence.

My point is that the real elephant in the room, which needs to be addressed before discussion which of the two options you gave is better, is that no one will agree that the best option is to blow up the entire submarine, let alone that it is an option at all. You seem to be saying it is not only a validly morally permissible option, but it is, in fact, the best option. — Bob Ross

I'll definitely address it. No, blowing up the submarine and killing all the people onboard before an hour passes is not more moral. For now, just focus on the example given to see if it works within the limitations presented. Don't worry about where this is going until we see where it is first.

My initial thought was 'that's incoherent' but i reflected a few minutes and I actually think this is very, very reasonable and a problem not-oft dealt with. — AmadeusD

Thanks! I'm less concerned with being right here as getting people to think. I'm glad you got to experience that.

all other moral questions are moot
— Philosophim

Do you mean by this, that they are ipso facto immoral given that being is immoral? — AmadeusD

This right here. If "Existence should not be", then nothing else matters.

I would understand the claim 'nothing should exist' as better repped. by "existence shouldn't be". — AmadeusD

Its equivalent so use whatever is clearer for you.

But if existence itself shouldn't be (as an objective moral claim) we are already too far gone to make a comment on it. We exist :) — AmadeusD

This is another approach to take as well. Even if you don't want to go into all the logic, there does come a point in which it makes a lot more sense to say "Existence should exist" if you of course want to justify your own existence.

If it is F that nothing should exist, and something SHOULD exist, how can we get to a moral agent from 'something'? — AmadeusD

This is where the theory gets a bit weird. I go into the idea of starting to quantify existence and seeing what works out. I recommend going over the OP at the second part to get an idea. If you still don't get it, the post right above your first one I'm replying to Bob about that section. Let me know what you think!

Im not seeing a connection between (6.) and (7.). We can only conclude that it is from (6.). — AmadeusD

True. These points are just summaries. You'll need the full story by reading the typed out details afterwards. However, this has changed a bit from discussing with Bob, so I'll post a revised version for you to check out and poke at. He has his own opinion on it, but I want to see what you determine independently.

The idea is that we don't know if there is an objective morality. If there is though, I find all moral questions boil down to needing the foundation of "Should existence be" or "Should nothing be"? Basically if "Existence should not be" is true, all other moral questions are moot. If there is an objective morality, then only one of these can be right. Either existence should, or should not be. No answer means, no objective morality. Which is fine if you don't believe in one, its about determining what would make the most sense if there was one.

So examine the following:

1. It is unknown whether, A, 'everything should not exist' is true. A = T/F
4. IF A is true, it must not lead to a conclusion which contradicts itself A = A && A != !A
5. Assume 'nothing should exist' is true A = T
6. Because it is moral that 'nothing should exist' the objective claim 'nothing should exist' should also not exist.
8. But if the moral claim, "Existence should not exist" should not exist, then by consequence, "Existence should exist" A -> !A
Therefore, if we are assuming an objective morality exists, the only claim which does not lead to a contradiction to its claims is "Existence should be".

What I'm noting is that if it is, according to itself, it shouldn't be. If such a morality exists, it would be immoral for it to exist. Compare this to the idea of "Contradictions should be encouraged". If that's the case, then we should contradict the point "Contradictions should be encouraged". But if we contradict this, then this necessarily means "Contradictions should not be encouraged". Let me know what you think!

But can we take the idea that existence is better
— Philosophim

I don't see how we can do that.. — AmadeusD

Hi AmadeusD, appreciate the visit to the thread! For thread like this I'm presenting several very specific arguments that lead up to conclusions. I'm very open to criticism, as for me, this is more of a work in progress than a finished project. If you're interested in criticizing or asking questions, please do it in relation to the OP's approach. So for example if you see a bit of logic that doesn't make sense, site it, and why it doesn't make sense within the OP, not simply a personal opinion. That will help keep the conversation focused so that both you and I can easily understand where we're each coming from.

For an example, check some of Bob Ross's replies to see how the conversation has evolved. As for your reply, I don't simply say "Existence is better," I lead up through several steps to conclude that. If you think I made a mistake in the steps, please indicate where. This will help me to see that you've read and understood/not understood the OP, and keep the conversation on track.

You say it is irrational…but I still don’t see why. — Bob Ross

Lets leave this for now then. I've tried explaining it a few times and I'm not sure how else to at this point. If you understand the statement "You should make contradictions", leads to contradicting the statement itself, thus negating it to 'You should not make contradictions', then that's all there is to it. Let move onto the other things though which I really want to discuss. I really don't have all the answers to this next part and have wanted to bounce these ideas with someone else who can think on this level for a long time.

Encouraging or mandating? This is what I would like to know. Is it morally permissible in your view to not create more existence when there is an opportunity to? — Bob Ross

This isn't an easy answer because we're talking about what people should do. But we're not there yet! I know, its a big change in thinking. That's the point. An objective morality shouldn't need people. If so, then there should be some type of morality that exists apart from them. So we think, we explore, and we see if anything makes sense.

What you do evaluate morally if there is no subject? What if a rock had the ‘opportunity’ to create more exist by interacting in a partular way but ‘chose’ not to? Well, obviously, this makes no sense because the rock doesn’t ‘decide’ anything, so why consider what would be better morally for the rock to do? — Bob Ross

No, a rock can't decide. Its not about a conscious decision. Its about preferable states. Just because something should happen doesn't mean it does happen. But can we take the idea that existence is better and determine which outcome would be best without there needing to be a judge or observer to make it so.

1. If existence is good, then more existence is better.

This seems to be mandating the creation of more things. — Bob Ross

No mandates yet! We aren't to consciousness yet. Just states of existence. Meaning that if we could label actual and expressed existence in two scenarios, we could determine which one would be better by comparing them.

For a very simple start, lets have universe A, and B. A has two atoms (Aristotelian for simplification), while B has 3 atoms. Comparing the two, which is better according to our foundation? Universe B. There is no decision or being which decides this, its just an observation of what's better.

Taken to a more human level for a minute, lets imagine that a world with magical unicorns ends up being the most existence. Preferable right? But impossible to create. When simply evaluating two worlds such as these, we aren't discussing about our decisions, responsibilities, or capabilities, just the difference in outcomes. Alright, back to boring matter. :)

If I have to kill 20 people in my lifetime in legitimate self-defense and I never contribute to the creation of more life and #2, then wouldn’t it follow that I am evil?

Likewise, if we could calculate out that force castrating 10% of the population, let’s say convicts, would total net increase the amount of people or lives, would this then, under your view, be righteous? — Bob Ross

I would love to come back to this after we build up the basics. But for now, that's too complex. We have to get the fundamentals down first.

What counts as ‘existence’ here? Just things that are alive? What if I am constantly destroying rocks, is that lowering the overall ‘existences’?

Likewise, I don’t think your ‘material’ vs. ‘expressional’ existence answers my above question. — Bob Ross

No, we are not talking about life yet. First we're trying to understand the nature of existence and how to evaluate it as good or not. A 'living' thing is simply an arrangement of matter and energy which we'll define after we understand this first part.

Likewise, I don’t think your ‘material’ vs. ‘expressional’ existence answers my above question.

When existence A collides with existence B, something happens. That something is an existence, but a fleeting one. How each individual material reacts when an interaction happens with another material existence would be the expression of each material existence
…
If more existence is better, than more expressions of existence are also better.

This makes it sound like more collisions equals better: but this is just chaos, pure chaos, then, no? — Bob Ross

First, lets define pure chaos. Pure chaos would be a situation without rules, and therefore limitless. Meaning that anything could happen. This is actually pure potential, and perhaps the way our universe works fundamentally. Regarding back to my post, "A first cause is logically necessary", the real conclusion from this is that there is no underlying reason for there to be anything, there simply is. And since there is no reason for there to be anything, there is no limitation on what could be.

This means that one second we could have a universe with 1 atom, then the next a universe with trillions. We could have a section of 'space' where a solar system existed for trillions of years, or one that existed for one second. Within infinite chaos over infinite time, everything, including sections of complete law-like order can happen. Considering infinite time and infinite possibilities would actually be the most moral universe as everything can potentially happen.

Of course, what if we are in a time limited universe with limited existence? At that point, we remove the infinite comparison and go to the finite comparison. In the case in which we have 1 atom vs trillions, the trillions universe is a superior set of existence.

As for our law-like limited universe (all we can assume at this point) things are constantly colliding with each other in concentrated set of matter called planets, suns, and solar systems. Let me simplify the idea down even more.

Lets say that the atoms of our universe are hydrogen. They jumble together to create a hot set of burning plasma called the sun. (Yes, I know a sun is made out of helium as well, its about simplification for the underlying point) We can imagine a universe in which there is only a sun. Or in the case of the hydrogen atoms, a tied together combination that they can never break free of. What do we gain and lose?

Again, we simplify it down to a couple of atoms so we can see the basics. Lets say we have 3 hydrogen atoms compressed together into a 'sun'. This cannot change. Now lets take another universe in which we have 2 hydrogens and a helium. In all respects from flat existence, they are equal. But what about expressed existences?

In the case of the 3 H universe, we have 3 base existences with each atom expressing itself as a connection with another to create a new existence that is different from H, a sun.

So, 3 + 1 sun and this can never change. So a total of 4 existence, zero potential existence.

Compare this to the mixed universe where the 'sun' could also fall apart.

Once again 3 existence. This universe has much more potential existence. Not only can they bump each other, but lets say they can also each create a new existence by combining for a time.

So, 3 + Potential existence (3*2*1 (combination of bumps, no reaction) + 3*2*1 (total combinations, new form) + 3 (1 bump into a 2 combo) = 3 + 15 potential existence. Of course, this also isn't including the existence of their separation from each other, which places the potential existence off the map as in the first universe, there can be no separation.

Back to the submarine now:

But, wouldn’t it be better, if “If more existence is better, than more expressions of existence are also better.” and more existence is better, to cause the submarine’s parts to collide, by way of explosion, with as many things as possible so as to maximize the odds of expressions of existence? — Bob Ross

Remember, we're examining morality in this case within particular constraints. In comparing the two situations with the following constraints, we see it is more more al for the 10 'people' to survive for one hour than 1 person to survive for 10 hours.

I'll let you chew on that for a while as I've already typed enough. Keep the questions coming!

As I said, the thought experiment is useless, because you have to stipulate whether or not time is passing, to get anywhere, but then you're begging the question. — Metaphysician Undercover

I am begging the question. What is time if not related to the change between objects? :D

Let me try your own thought experiment, maybe that will help. Imagine two things not moving relative to each other, and time is passing. Easy so far, right? Now add your special premise, these two things are the only things in the universe. Where's the difficulty? — Metaphysician Undercover

Its easy in the first case because time is change between entities. That's why it becomes more difficult in the second case. If time exists apart from the change between two entities, then what is it at its fundamental? If its not an observer, and everything exists without change, what is time?

Let me give you another example. In fiction, sometimes a character will have the ability to stop time for everyone but themselves. In such a scenario, nothing changes in relation to one another except for the character. Time itself didn't freeze, but only because there was something that was not frozen, the character. Imagine a universe as a completely frozen still shot where there is no comparative change. Do we not say its a universe frozen in time? I think you answer this in the next quotes I pull from you.

Things do not need to be measured by a human being, to exist. — Metaphysician Undercover

Notice that I am talking about "physical change", "observable change", and I say that time could pass without any of this occurring. However, I do not intend to exclude "change" in an absolute sense. I described time itself as a sort of change, the process of the future becoming past. The point though, is that this, itself. is not observable. We don't observe the future becoming the past, we observe particular, specific physical changes, and from this we can infer that time is passing. However, time passing, itself, is not observed. And, we must maintain this principle, that time passing is not any specific type of observable change, but a general type of change which encompasses all observable physical changes, in order that we will be able to measure all types of physical changes, through a theory which provides a non-physical, unobservable change, "time", to provide the measurement tool. — Metaphysician Undercover

So if I understand it right, you believe time is a 'thing in itself'. And by this I mean it is something that exists which we attempt to capture in a meaningful way. For us, that meaningful way is change. But like all 'things-in-themselves' our attempt to grasp it is merely the most logical way we can understand it, not necessarily a full understanding of it as it exists in itself.

Thus if I understand it right, we measure and understand time through observance of change, but that measurement is an approximation and doesn't really capture the idea of 'the present becoming the future'. Change is a convenient way to measure time, but not necessary for it to exist, as time is its own unobservable entity.

This is what I was looking for in your answer. If I understand you correctly, its not a bad take. It leaves itself open to people who state, "How can we know what is unobservable/time is an illusion" people, but I think its acceptable for anyone else.

Here we have it, this is where we differ. You define knowing as "most rational conclusion" and your "knowing" can be utterly changed if new evidence is introduced.

I have a much higher threshold of required certainty in my definition of knowing. — mentos987

This is completely fair, and many people have a higher standard of knowledge that ties in with truth. Epistemology is one of my favorite topics, and I've studied it for many years. Even written my own theory of knowledge if you're interested. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1

You can skip down to the first post by Cerulean-Lawrence. They have a perfect summary if you're interested in just reading that. If you're interested in a deep dive into knowledge discussions, feel free to post there.

1. I don’t see why it is internally incoherent for moral realists people who accept there is objective morality to affirm that “there should be nothing” if that particular theory accepts that it is a moral fact that “there should be nothing”. — Bob Ross

Recall this is not a proof that objective morality exists. This is an attempt to rationally identify what an objective morality would rationally be. While my ontological proof failed, the fact that "Everything should not exist" leads to the fact that, "This statement of morality should not exist" and seems quite irrational, we're going to assume the more rational choice. Could it be that the objective morality is that we should end everything and everyone? Sure. Is it rational to conclude this is what should be done without evidence? No.

I don’t really understand your idea of morality being objective, and I think a lot of our disagreement is due to the murky waters here. — Bob Ross

Then honestly don't worry about it right now. I'm much more interested in the thoughts that can come out of assuming the foundational morality is, "There should be existence." This is where we get to experiment, think and have fun. Your belief in whether there exists an objective or subjective morality is irrelevant to the thought experiment. Just go with the assumption for now. :)

So, let’s say “there should be something”: does this simply mean that “existence is preferable to non-existence” or does it mean that “we must create as many existent things as possible”? — Bob Ross

Yes, this is where I want to discuss next. If it is "preferable to have existence" then it doesn't seem limited to just one existence. For one, that seem arbitrary. If we're going to number it, then what objective number would work? 5 existences? No, that doesn't work. The reason why is then there would need to be a reason why, and also what types of existences should be. But each question of what should exist still comes down to the fundamental that "Existence should be".

So since we have no way of telling what types of existences should or should be at a fundamental level, we go with the idea that existence should be, therefore encouraging and preserving existence should be the fundamental goal.

(2) this seems to contradict common-sensical moral intuitions (which perhaps isn’t relevant to your point) in the sense that it seems to be a sort of biting of a bullet (e.g., we would have to force people to procreate, etc.). — Bob Ross

No, that's a bit far of a jump ahead. It would really help at this point if you avoided any sense of human morality and just went along with the fundamental building up of morality. We'll get to human morality, no worry.

For now, what do you think about my evaluation of expressed existence? Also, did you get to the example of the submarine in the ocean? Let me know what you think Bob.

But the Lorentz transformations, which are what constrains matter to travelling below the speed of light, aren't derived from empirical evidence or subject to data that is variable. They're derived from the postulate that the laws of physics are invariant (necessary for science to be consistent with itself) along with mathematical modeling. — Hallucinogen

Knowledge and truth are not the same thing. Knowledge is the most reasonable conclusion we can make with the information we have at the time. That can change as new information comes about. Truth is inalienable, and does not care what evidence or rational conclusions we make. We can only assume that what we know is the closest to the truth at the time, because at the time rationality and reality are not contradicting our conclusions.

Agnostic - Doesn't know if God exists or not
— Philosophim

That is not what agnostic means, agnostic means unknowing. — Lionino

How do you see "Doesn't know" as different from "unknowing"? Aren't they the same thing?

Truth exists despite our knowledge of it. They are not the same thing. I can know physics today, but there may be aspects of it that aren't true which we discover 100 years from now.
— Philosophim

So you can "know" that Einstein was wrong (because he had only theories, no proof) until someone else provides the proof? — mentos987

No, we would need to see his evidence first. Einstein invented a theory of math. I could look at his theory and know that his math was correct from where he started. But to know if the math represented reality, he would need to test it in reality. As long as Einstein didn't claim to know it worked in reality without testing it, he would not know if it worked either. Einstein believed it would work in reality, and fortunately for us all, it did.

If someone provides concrete proof that god exist I will be proven wrong in my belief that god does not exist. — mentos987

What you knew will no longer be known, true. There are plenty of things that you can know today that may be proven wrong tomorrow by a change in evidence or new discoveries. But what you know today is the only logical conclusion you can come to with all the information and evidence you have.

The way I see it, if you knew something and are later proven wrong, it means that you never knew it to begin with. — mentos987

No, knowledge is not infallible or necessarily true. Its just the most reasonable conclusion with the evidence we have. You can believe in God despite knowing there is not a God. Belief is when we take a less reasonable conclusion in the face of knowledge, or all we have to go on when we lack knowledge entirely.

Again, it is just a small matter of semantics. It all depends on how high a degree of certainty you assign to the word "know". — mentos987

Knowledge is contextual of course. Again, its the most rational conclusion based on evidence. Sometimes there is not enough evidence to arrive at a most rational conclusion, therefore we must rely on belief. To an atheist, there is no evidence that proves God exists which holds up under scrutiny. Therefore atheists know that God does not exist.

The 'third' situation is where we need a new word. This is where a person believes a God doesn't exist despite there being enough evidence not to rationally decide either way, or there being enough evidence for someone to know that a God exists. Or maybe there's simply an adjective fix such as "knowing atheist" or, "believing atheist". But in general the word has meant people who assert that the know God does not exist.

The thought experiment is unhelpful, and that's the point I'm making. We don't know enough about time to answer the question. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's kind of the point. We're trying to come up with a reasonable explanation of time.

So the answer simply depends on what you mean by "eternity". If by "eternity", you mean time passing endlessly, then clearly time passes in the thought experiment. — Metaphysician Undercover

I just mean that they never move. There is no outside observer, there's no beginning, no end. Yes, if there was an observer there that would be a third existence monitoring change relative to themselves. But if there is no observer and no change in any existence, what's the difference between that and no time at all? This isn't a proof, its just a thought experiment to get us to think about the abstract nature of time without an observer. Is 'time' an actual thing?

Furthermore, the second part is completely illogical from accepted self-evident premises. If there is only two particles unmoving relative to each other, in the entire universe, it is impossible that they could suddenly move closer to each other, because this would require a cause, meaning something else in existence is necessary. — Metaphysician Undercover

Its just a thought experiment to get us to think. Its not a real life example. If you want to be realistic, its impossible to have the entire experiment as it is. There are obviously more than two particles in the universe. The idea of a thought experiment is to pair down variables to get to certain constants. The idea is simple. A universe where two thing exist that have no change, then suddenly there is change. Was there time before the change? Do we retroactively put time before the change? Can there be time if there is no change at all? These are the general questions we're thinking on.

So the proposed thought experiment is entirely useless for two distinct reasons. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, a thought experiment is about the key questions, not the reality of the experiment itself. If you get the key questions, that's all I'm asking you to answer in your own proposal for time.

Can you imagine two material objects not moving relative to each other, while some time passes? If so, then you ought to accept the proposition that movement of material objects relative to each other is not logically necessary for time to be passing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, that's what I'm pointing out. I can imagine time passing, but only because I'm observing it. If there is no observer and no change at all, is there time? Its not movement in particular, its change. Thinking is change. Observance is change. If there is no change, do we have time in reality, or is it a tool we invent from a world of change and retrofit it to a world without change?

As I explained, you are trying to base your conception of "time" in the observable effects of time passing (the movement of material objects), instead of looking directly at what time is, to produce a much more accurate understanding of it — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm trying to ask what time is beyond a tool. How do can you realistically measure time in a world without change? If you can't, does it exist? Is the nature of time something more fundamental than a tool of an observer and change? Is it its own existence?

As ↪jgill indicates, premises concerning what we know about the physical universe, in conjunction with good logical practise, indicates that time could pass without physical change. — Metaphysician Undercover

Rotation is physical change. I'm not trying to say "I have this." This is not me proving anything. This is me asking you a simple question. How does time exist in a hypothetical world without any change?

Since time in theory, is infinitely divisible (and we have found no real points of division in the continuity of time), then In theory we can still proceed to an even shorter period of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, as observers we can continue to cut down time as small as we want. But even 'plank' time is a measure of change right? We're inventing a half-plank length. And clearly though we can invent infinite time, infinite time doesn't happen in between plank tics.

The obvious problem with this proposal is that physicalist tendencies incline people to disallow the possibility of unobservable change, and the entire immaterial realm. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, I'm not trying to disallow anything though. I'm just trying to understand what the fundamental of time is without an observer. If its not change, what is it?

Appreciate the tag. I read it with interest, just nothing further to add to the matter. :)

Are they moving in reference to something else, like revolving? I have brought this up earlier. It has seemed odd that Minkowski spacetime might imply the passage of time with no physical movement. — jgill

No, its just two particles. Lets say the particles are a little misshapen so its apparent they aren't even rotating around each other either. If they were rotating, even if both were smooth and we couldn't tell, time would be happening without an observer. So does time happen if both stand still and no change occurs within or between them?

So perhaps this is best left alone if that’s the MO. — AmadeusD

The wisest words you've said here. Another conversation, another time.

I don't see the need for these two existents. The change relative to each other requires the passing of time, so it is evidence to an observer that time has passed, but time could also pass without any change of these two, relative to each other. — Metaphysician Undercover

Let me give you the thought experiment I'm thinking of so you can see what I mean. Lets say that only two particles exist in the entire universe. They stay exactly 1 meter away from each other for eternity. Is there time?

To me, if there is an observer, then there is a third existence that is changing. But we're talking about two particles that do not move relative to one another at all. Now, lets say that they move in one inch closer. Suddenly, we now have time, even without an observer. The thought experiment is that there has to be at least one change between two existences for time to exist. How would you approach it?

Anyone is free to claim whatever they want. Knowing is another matter to me.

Consider this; scientists have spent the last 50 years trying to prove Einsteins theories. They are slowly finding that most of them are true. Does this mean that the theories were not true until we proved them true? Did we know them to be false until we proved them to be true? — mentos987

Truth exists despite our knowledge of it. They are not the same thing. I can know physics today, but there may be aspects of it that aren't true which we discover 100 years from now. On the flip side, I could believe that a one eyed being watches my every move because I dreamed it, and it were true. I wouldn't have knowledge of it though, it would simply be a belief.

At the very least, if you accepted the definitions that are actually used for those terms, the ambiguity would disappear and the words would already (and they do!) serve the purpose your trying to reinvent the wheel for. — AmadeusD

I could say exactly the same thing back. You're just asserting you are correct because you believe you are correct. When I disagreed with reasons, you just got upset. If enjoy conversations with people who have different ideas than you, act like it. You can disagree with respect and not get upset at the other poster. Well, unless they start insulting you first, then have at it.

Forgiven, just don't do it again.

Do you think matter that travels faster than the speed of light can exist? — Hallucinogen

I know there is no matter that can travel faster than light as of today. I believe we might find something in the future.

. If you claim to not know it, then argue that there are no green men on the moon, you believe it.
— Philosophim

Err nope. Arguing against the likelihood of something does not require knowledge that it “isn’t”. Your misinterpretations are starting to seem trollish — AmadeusD

And here I thought we had a nice parting of the ways. You're simply asserting, "I'm wrong" then calling me a troll. Control yourself and bow out of a conversation between myself and the other poster please.

When I hear people say they "know" something about religion I will automatically translate that to "believe", because religion is such an unknowable field. — mentos987

Agreed. I noted that earlier here.

Theists believe in God. Theists may claim they know God exists, but its never held up to any standard of knowledge, so becomes faith. — Philosophim

I do not think that atheists truly knows that god does not exist, since it is too hard to prove. — mentos987

You cannot prove a negative. Proving something requires what's called, "The burden of proof". Someone must present evidence of what they are claiming exists. To claim things don't exist requires no burden. Someone has the burden of proof to claim God exists, atheists do not have the burden of proof to claim something doesn't exist. Its not just God, its any topic.

Hey Bob, for some reason I completely missed that you had replied to this. Came in to review it and saw it luckily!

Why is it incoherent? I think we both agree it isn’t internally incoherent, but why is it externally incoherent? — Bob Ross

Its just not internally coherent. That's evidence that something isn't real.

If I don't know if "Contradictions should be encouraged" is real, I can follow the logic to realize it contradictions itself, so then in conclude contradictions should probably not be encouraged.

This is circular...but, then again, so is all fundamental reason and logic. — Bob Ross

Circular logic is self-confirming. This is self-contradicting.

I won't go into my reasons, they're just my reason why. Lets get back to the discussion!

P1: The way reality is does not entail how it ought to be.

P2: Moral facts are ways reality is such that it informs us how it ought to be. — Bob Ross

I pointed this out in our last discussion and I think it merits pointing out in detail again. Morality is a choice between two potential realities. Of course reality as it is right now does not tell us how it should be, because we're not evaluating a change in reality by either comparing to the past, or evaluating a change for the future. Only when we think, "Well, what if we change reality to include X, would that be better?" are we discussing morality. P1 only regards the present therefore does not regard morality.

1. Your proof no longer works for “existence should be”, because there is no contradiction. — Bob Ross

My proof no longer works ontologically. However, it does work by demonstrating how incoherent it would be if the objective morality were, "Everything should not be." Assuming rationality is our best representation of reality, we will go with the idea that incoherent ideas of morality are likely not to be true.

Or what makes it objectively true in your view? — Bob Ross

If there is an objective morality, this is the only way tor it to be rationally coherent.

Read the rest Bob! Keep an open mind and have fun. Take the idea that if it is true that "Existence should be" is the foundation for an objective morality, lets have fun thinking what that would entail based on the OP.

Abstaining from belief requires no knowledge. Sorry if that’s not how you feel. — AmadeusD

Yes, that's what an agnostic does. They don't have enough evidence to make a decision either way. But this seems to be upsetting you. Have the last word, I won't reply this time.

So if someone asked, "How do you know X", you would provide your proof as such. This does not negate my point.
— Philosophim

No, I would not claim I know there are no green men on the moon. But I would argue against it. — mentos987

Now you're just switching up what I stated. If you claim to know something, you would do what I noted to proove that you know it. If you claim to not know it, then argue that there are no green men on the moon, you believe it.

What? No it isn’t. That’s entirely non sequitur. It’s a lack of knowledge of the existence of God/s. It is neutral. It is not a decision. It is in fact NOT making a decision. — AmadeusD

Odd how riled up you are over this. I'm an atheist. I know God doesn't exist. Its not that hard. You seem to be confusing that knowledge means you have the burden of proof. You do not need a burden of proof to know things don't exist. Its up to those who want to prove that something exists to have the burden of proof. I think this is more of an issue of "What is knowledge" than anything else.

I know that there are tons of things that I have never heard of nor experienced any evidence for, yet I do not claim they do not exist. — mentos987

Sure, but that is because you trust certain sources in society and there is no valid reason for you not to. That's your evidence. So if someone asked, "How do you know X", you would provide your proof as such. This does not negate my point.

Regardless of compliance with Cicero's Criteria, and with Skeptical caution, the Enformationism thesis remains a philosophical conjecture, not a scientific fact. — Gnomon

Which is fine. Philosophy which refers to itself as something to look into and test is sound philosophy. We always need people poking and prodding at what we know to ensure that we really know it. You may be interested in a paper I wrote a while back about knowledge. There's a summary from a poster immediately after mine that nails it if you want to take a look. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1

Like many atheists I do not say there is no god since that is a positive claim which requires demonstration. — Tom Storm

You don't need to demonstrate that you know things because the evidence isn't adequate for it. I know that Zeus doesn't exist. Its not that I don't believe Zeus exists. It just seems like you're afraid of asserting something. Assert! No evidence = Know it doesn't exist

Seems like an unnecessary distortion of agnostic and atheism that causes confusion for someone who's not comfortable saying what they know.

Suffice to say you are wrong here and just repeating the incorrect descriptions. Abstaining from belief requires no knowledge. It is precisely a lack of knowledge that leads one to abstain. No evidence? Ignored. — AmadeusD

Yes, but you deciding to make a decision based on a lack of evidence is knowledge, not belief. Belief happens when you have incomplete knowledge, yet decide its the answer anyway. Its not that I don't believe there aren't little green men on the moon, I know there aren't. Not because I've been to the moon, but because no one has given me validated evidence that they exist on the moon.

Theists believe in God. Theists may claim they know God exists, but its never held up to any standard of knowledge, so becomes faith.

Atheists don't believe there isn't a God, they know there isn't a God because there's no evidence.

An agnostic does not know what to believe as they don't see enough evidence one way or the other to make an assertion.

I suppose after putting those definitions out, there is still the possibility that someone does not have enough evidence to know that a God doesn't exist, so some evidence that they one does exist, but believes they don't exist. Since there's no label for this individually, this must get swept up in the term atheist. Perhaps we need a new word.

I'm not a fan of any word that identifies a race in America as something special or different, considering our long and crappy history with racism. I don't even like it when the community uses it itself. I feel it only reinforces separateness and differences.

I was a high school math teacher for five years in inner city schools. My student breakdown was often 40% hispanic and 60% black. I am a white man. I never let my students use the N word in class, despite me knowing it was only thoughtless slang. I always told them to respect yourself as part of the human race, and that every time you use the word there's some racist somewhere who's nodding their ahead and saying, "You bet you are."

Its unthoughtful, and only adds to stereotypes of blacks as thoughtless, ignorant, or primitive. I am here to say as one who has lived as the only white man in all black apartments for several years, that this could not be further from the truth. It might seems like an insignificant division from someone raised in the black community, but any educated black person should never use the word, and ask their community to do better.

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Agnostic isn’t just a “weaker” version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know. — Tom Storm

Several problems with this.

1. To reject an assertion that there is a God, you either have to believe that there is no God, or know that there is no God.

"Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system" Ah, ok, so its knowledge then.
" To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods." Oh, so its not a belief then. So I guess they know there isn't a God. Seems unclear.

Agnosticism as long as I've heard it has mean that you don't know enough to determine one way or another where there is a God or not. An atheist asserts there is no God.

An atheist merely abstains from belief. They do not assert that God does NOT exist. — AmadeusD

This is either a belief or knowledge. To abstain from belief is because you rely on knowledge. To rely on belief is because you abstain from knowledge. Atheists know that God does not exist because there is no evidence for it. Just like I know magical unicorns don't exist, there's no evidence for it.

An agnostic is a person who remains unconvinced that there is enough evidence, or lack of evidence, to make an assertion one way or the other.

Who's calling themselves an agnostic atheist? That's just misunderstanding the definition of the terms.

Agnostic - Doesn't know if God exists or not
Atheist - Denies God's existence entirely

Not a problem! I hope you enjoy your time here.

Welcome to the forum Elysium House! Just a heads up, you ended up replying to a 3 year old post. Check at the bottom of the post in the lower left corner and it will tell you how old it is.

I think yours is an inadequate definition of time because "registered change" implies observation, judgement. — Metaphysician Undercover

Oh, I actually didn't mean to imply that. I'm not a person who believes all reality is dependent on our observation. I do believe there need to be at least two 'pieces' of existence for time to occur as it would be the change relative to each other. No observer required.

Yes, physicists are actually heavily invested in the use of "causation". Take a look at the concepts of "lightcone", "timelike & spacelike", "worldline", "propertime", for example. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, denial of causation is fundamentally silly. Its also completely indefensible if you remove the abstract. 'What caused your message to appear on the forum today?' for example, causes even the most passionate causality deniers great difficulty.

Until we come up with a clear description of what time is, this statement cannot be justified — Metaphysician Undercover

I believe I noted that time was registered change between entities. That's not very specific of course. Do you have a definition of time that you like to use?

When an atom decays radioactively from one element to another there is no prior event or cause for this to happen - it is completely random. — EricH

No, it is random by statistics. It is not actually violating the laws of physics. :) To have something without a prior explanation means there were no rules forbidding or necessitating its creation. Something without prior cause exists, simply because it does. There is no prior reason.