If we know everything in the universe, then the PSR makes sense.
If we can verify everything in the universe, then we know everything in the universe.
We cannot verify everything in the universe.
Therefore we don't know everything in the universe.
==========================================
"Therefore the PSR is makes sense." is not true.

Prove Q
P -> Q
R -> P
~R
~P
=======
~Q

What do you think of this proof?

If thoughts didn't exist, then how can a thought affect the physical world, — RussellA

You apply the thoughts onto the physical world i.e. typing, measuring, hammering, drilling, and driving ... etc. You have ideas how to use and manipulate the physical objects. But the ideas are in your head, not in the world.

the thought of pressing the "t" key on the keyboard turns into actually pressing the "t" key on the keyboard. — RussellA

Folks learn to type from the early age, and typing becomes their 2nd nature.

Thoughts exist, otherwise you couldn't have written your post. — RussellA

I had thoughts, but I wouldn't say the thought existed. You cannot use "exist" on the abstract concepts. Well you could, just like you have done, but it doesn't quite make sense, and could be classed as "unintelligible".

You have ideas and know the concepts, but ideas and concepts don't exist in the external world like the physical objects do.

Is a thought in the mind any less real than something in a world outside any mind? — RussellA

That sounds like a categorical mistake. It is not matter of real or unreal. It is matter of knowing or not knowing.

In the beginning there was nothing. Then something came into existence. — alleybear

How did something come into existence from nothing?

But you are writing about the first even prime greater than 100, so it must exist. — RussellA

So what do you think it means to you when someone said "100", or when you saw a writing on the wall "100" apart from the fact that it is a even number?

??? I"d say 3 makes perfect sense on its own. It's an integer, prime, odd, etc. — Art48

So are, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17 .... etc etc? Surely you would have been looking for something more than the textbook definitions of 3?

We know, have them in our mind, and use numbers to describe the physical objects in the world.
Numbers don't exist like the physical objects. Numbers are concepts.

3 doesn't make sense on its own, but 3 kings do, 4 apples do as well.
It took me 2 days to read the book. 2 itself is meaningless, but 2 days makes sense.

Same with good and bad. They don't exist. We know them have them in mind, and use them to describe things, actions and situations, and people ... etc.

Good itself doesn't make sense. Whatever definition you give to good, it would be a tautology.
Good person, good deed, good food, good books, and good feeling do. Diito with bad.

Nihilism is rejected as a false view in Buddhism. It is one of the 'two extremes', the other extreme being eternalism, although that is a difficult concept to explain in few words.

Although that essay you quote is indeed pessimistic, perhaps I have been too easily impressed by the idealist aspects of his philosophy. His dour pessimism is alienating at times. — Wayfarer

Buddha was a royal dude in his country where he was born. He had everything i.e. money, power, luxury of life and thousands around him to do things for him. But he knew all that good things in life won't last. He will get old, and eventually die giving up everything he had just like any other ordinary folks.

So after much thought about it, he decided to abandon everything he had, and went up to the mountain penniless and hungry. He sat down under the tree, and meditated for the knowledge and meaning of life until his death.

That is a typical scenario of nihilism. All the good things and luxury of life one has at present will not last, because everything changes, and his life too. Getting old and dying is the fate of man. Therefore everything in life is meaningless. But if life is meaningless, then dying is also meaningless. Because whether one likes it or not, it will come to him anyway. Isn't it nihilism?

Schopenhauer says in his essays, because all above and more, life is bad, and not worth living. After reading his pessimistic essays, many German young folks killed themselves at the time when Schopenhauer was living. One of the famous philosophers who followed the path was Mainlander, I believe. But ironically Schopenhauer didn't kill himself. He lived a long life, and had a natural death.

The way I compare Schopenhauer's philosophy to Buddhism is that he has an acute sense of the 'first noble truth' of Buddhism, that existence is dukkha, suffering or sorrowful or unsatisfying. But not so much of the remaining three 'noble truths' - that suffering has a cause, that it has an end, and that there is a way to that end. So it's not unreservedly pessmistic, although it is not very compatible with what modern culture regards as normality. — Wayfarer

Suffering will only end after one's death. That's not a good ending. Death is unknown and eternal, forcing life to give up even the minimum existence and freedom of thinking. Life is a pinnacle of tragedy from Schopenhauer's view in his essays.

It seems clear that Schopenhauer was strongly influenced by Kant's idealism and transcendental philosophy as well as Buddhism. I gather he had written substantial critical commentary on Kant's TI, but seems to had adopted part of the TI into his epistemology and the idea of the World.

But if you read his original essays called "On the Suffering of the World", it seems to be unmistakably nihilism writing. Isn't Buddhism after all based on the nihilism?

I asked Clearbury that same question and s/he got all huffy and claimed I didn't understand their version of solipsism. It seems that Clearbury is not at all clear on that point, so s/he wants to bury it so that others won't notice the central problem with the OP, namely the lack os a clear account of how s/he understands solipsism. — Janus

I too, have been trying to get some clarification on the OP, which has some unclear parts. But it seems clear, that the author of the OP, @clearbury keeps avoiding to give out his clear answers to the questions.

P -> Q
~Q
=======
~P (MT)

If the PSR is true, then we know about everything in the universe.
We don't know about everything in the universe.
Therefore the PSR is not true.

. He says Schopenhauer was the ‘godfather of nihilism’ which I don’t necessarily agree with. — Wayfarer

What are the reasons for you don't agree with the claim?

I am not trying to make you follow me.   I am just saying there are some questions rising from the OP, and further your assertions, which are getting more mysterious and even spooky.

You claim that you posited a single mind for a single instance.  But is mind something which can be posited?  Is it your own mind, or someone else's mind which you posited?  How did you do that, if that operation had been done?

Because from my understanding, one can only be conscious of one's own mind, and no one else's.
If it were your mind, then how does your body function without the mind, which is posited to the OP or to some other location or storage? 

As your staunch claim, if your body doesn't exist, because it is disembodied from the mind, then how were you able to read my posts without the sights, and replied to them with no hands and fingers to type up?

If the PSR was not valid, one day, everything that had been beneficial to life could now be lethal to life, and vice versa. — RussellA

This can happen in real life all the time, and is just a fact of life and reality. All things has positive sides, but also negative sides. It depends on what angle you are looking at the things.

For example, cars are beneficial to human life. It is fast, convenient, and essential to the business. But cars pollute the earth, contributing to major global weather changes. They can also cause people to die from the accidents ... etc. Nothing is 100% beneficial. Nothing is 100% lethal depending on how you look at them.

Could life survive in such a world? — RussellA

Of course, it can. Some life dies, but some survives. It is just a matter of the survival of the fittest.
The survival of life has nothing to do with the PSR.

And comes the notion that asking what is good, was never the right question to ask. — Mww

Fully agree with you. That was my whole point. Plus the sense of moral good changes from / to different cultures, and different historical times. The practical reason will always remind the above facts to the thinker in his / her moral reasoning.

An ethics where "moral good" is some sort of distinct property unrelated to these other uses of good and which primarily applies only to human acts seems doomed to failure IMHO, because it cannot explain what this "good" has to do with anything else that is desirable and choice-worthy. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Good point. This is where Kant's practical reason comes in. Kant says that you know by human nature what morally good acts are in your heart and mind. He said something like this in his writings,
"In the sky, you see the stars shinning. In your mind, you know what the moral good actions are."

You don't need a thick tome of ethic book with the abstract definitions of what moral Good is, or what things or who are morally good. You know what morally good actions are by reflecting the situations and actions you must take out of the moral duty, which you understand by the practical reason.

If the PSR was not valid, and for every fact there was no reason, then there would be no reason why facts didn't change. — RussellA

The more you try to prove the PSR is valid, the more it seems to be the case it is invalid, unsound and false due to the false premises being used in the arguments.

I thought it was an extremely barmy attempt trying to define the undefinable spewing out loads of meaningless gibberish. :)
Great to have an agreement here. Thanks.

Suppose one day water was beneficial to life and the next day it was lethal, one day air was beneficial to life and the next day it was lethal, one day potatoes were beneficial to life and the next day they were lethal, etc.

Are you saying that life would be able to survive in such a world? — RussellA

I am not sure if these reasoning prove the PSR is valid. Because there are cases, water can kill folks. Think of the cases such as flood, drowning or contaminated water which kill folks too.

Air is beneficial to folks, but the polluted air also kills folks. So they have the contradictory cases, which makes them unfit for qualifying as acceptable premises which prove the PSR true.

I might expand to say that a word represents a property of actions, good is a word that represents a property of actions, quality is a property of actions, therefore good is a word that represents the quality of actions. — Mww

We have agreement there.

Does that expansion diminish your point? Hopefully not too much anyway, cuz I agree with your major point. — Mww

It seems to supplement my point with more accuracy.

wasn’t ever a proper question anyway but oh well, right?….. it becomes clear, under certain theoretical conditions, why there isn’t going to be one, and furthermore, why there’s no need for it. — Mww

:up:

For example, one day it could be a fact that "food is beneficial to humans" and the next day it could be the fact that "food is lethal to humans".

If the PSR was not valid, humans couldn't survive. But humans have survived, Therefore the PSR must be valid. — RussellA

a fact that "food is beneficial to humans" and the next day it could be the fact that "food is lethal to humans" — RussellA

I am not sure if humans survived because food is beneficial. There are some food which is lethal to some humans due to its allergic reactions causing deaths. Some humans didn't survive because of the food in that case. Therefore the premises of the reasoning is incorrect or irrelevant, which proves the PSR is a nonsense.

PSR - for every fact there is an explanation — RussellA

Ok, let's hear about this first. What is the explanation for "for every fact there is an explanation"?

On the one hand "light bends around sources with high mass due to gravity" and on the other hand "gravity causes light to bend around sources with high mass". — RussellA

This sounds like a contradiction. Surely PSR doesn't allow contradictions for the conclusions.

In the same way that "the reason he is ambitious is because he is driven" and "the reason the job was complex was because it was complicated." — RussellA

These are just repeating the same thing for what had been said in the first part of the sentence using because. It is not saying anything new or different.

"Gravity" is more a synonym than a reason why light bends around sources with high mass. — RussellA

Gravity is a scientific concept which must apply to every cases in the universe if it is true.

Isn't it the case that good cannot be defined in morality? Only the human actions are good, neutral or evil. But good itself is a word for property of the actions.

The question does not answer itself. It implies that mind without body is an unintelligible assumption, which generates the vacuous assertion. It asks if solipsism would make more sense if it assumed mind in body.

In a sense it does, as light bends around sources with high mass due to gravity.

From www.astronomy.com

While it is true that photons have no mass, it is also true that we see light bend around sources with high mass due to gravity. — RussellA

Doesn't it then disapprove what you are claiming? Gravity is a force when the high mass pulls any mass lower than the high mass. But the light bends around sources with high mass due to gravity. Even massless photons gets bend due to gravity means gravity applies to even massless matter.

we just have to accept our observation that gravity causes a rock to fall to the ground when released, where gravity is something that causes a rock to fall to the ground when released. — RussellA

When the light is released into the space, why doesn't it fall to the ground?

My purpose is to try and figure out what's going on. And 'solipsism' isn't trying to prove anything. It's a thesis. I am the prover. And I'm not really trying to 'prove' it, just show that it is a simpler thesis than its nearest rival. Whether that proves it - that is, puts its truth beyond all reasonable doubt - is another matter, as simplicity is only one epistemic virtue not all of them. — Clearbury

Why not solipsism with the mind in a body, or mind and body? You keep emphasising on simplicity, but simplicity can degenerate into the vacuous assertions.

Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR): For any thing that exists or is true, there is a sufficient reason for it to exist or to be true. — A Christian Philosophy

Isn't reason a product of human mind? Reasons don't exist out there in the external world. There are only matter, energy and changes in the world. Reason is an operation of human mind seeking for the causal explanations on the existence and changes.

For the proper operations of the inductive reasoning, human observations do need the data to draw the reasoning for the conclusions.

Therefore there are many events and existence which have the reasons, and many are unknown due to lack of the data.

If individual consciousness does not exist besides our own, that does not disprove the existence of others’ consciousness. In fact, it gives evidence to the opposite. The creation of other people by one’s own mind means that those people must, then, have a consciousness, that consciousness being your own. Likewise to the characters in dreams, if we assume other people are also creations of our mind, to say that they do not have consciousness is to deny the existence of one’s own consciousness, as the actions of those people are a direct result of your consciousness. — Reilyn

I know other people's consciousness exist by my perception of their bodies, language they speak which reflects their thought contents, feelings, emotions and dispositions. Their facial expressions can be also the sign of their consciousness, which can give clues to their mental states. But when someone is far away in the remote place not visually perceptible, their writings I read can be the proof of their existence in body and consciousness.

Without above evidence, it is not possible for me to know the consciousness of the others exist. This is the way existence claims its reality in the real world.

Folks I see in my dreams are as you say, mind-created existence which only exist as mental images in the mind.

Folks I think about such as the philosophers in history e.g. Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant ... etc would be the abstract existence who exist in the mind, but not in the real world at the present time now.

I cannot know anything about the consciousness of the folks in the dreams and abstract world whether they exist or not. I suppose they don't exist.

The problem with higher than first order logic, is that they don't have a complete proof theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-order_logic
(under MetaLogical results). — A Realist

Could you demonstrate your point with some example proofs?

So, just assume a mind in a mental state. Now assume the mind has one disposition: to put itself in a mental state that closely resembles the one it is already in. So, its disposition is just to replicate the state it is in but it makes small changes every time it does this. That gets the job done. That's what this is (or could be). — Clearbury

What is the purpose for doing this? What is the solipsism trying to prove?

This is analogous to if there was an OP asking where to begin studying what is red, and your response is to say “analyze red trucks”. One should not begin with an analysis of what can be predicated to be red (like a red truck)—viz., happiness—but rather what does it mean for something, in principle, to be red at all? That’s where begin. — Bob Ross


Your response was to say:

You are still missing the point. I never said happiness is Good. I said, actions which brings happiness is Good. — Corvus


Thereby trying to evade my critique by providing the rejoinder that it was a mischaracterization of your view (because you do not believe happiness is good). I, then, responded with: — Bob Ross

This is not true. This is your distortion on my point. I wrote about "happiness is not good, but what brings happiness is good". That doesn't mean happiness is not good quality of mind. It means happiness is NOT IDENTICAL TO good. Happiness and good are not the same thing. Happiness is a mental state and Good is a moral value which can cause happiness.

I am not sure if you were confused between happiness and Good, or your writing was intentional distortion on my points.

For the concept of Red, you don't learn the concept of Red by analysing what red means. You learn what red means by looking and seeing the red objects. So here is another gross misunderstanding on your part.

Just like the concept of red, you don't learn what the concept of Good is by analysing it. You learn the concept of Good, by seeing the good acts of humans in the moral situations.

I think I already wrote in my previous post somewhere. I looked into many philosophers in history for their idea of moral good. They are different, and there is not much content in the description what moral good is.

For example, Spinoza said moral good is pleasure, evil is pain. And Kant must have said something different, so did Leibniz etc etc. I was not quite sure why you insisted on starting defining Good in building someone's moral code. That doesn't sound like making sense at all. Even if the OP's title is about How to define Moral Good, you should have said moral good is undefinable, like Moore said 100 years ago.

I do see now how this Nihilsum doesn't actually provide anything for thought for lets say theoretical abstraction because it has no base at all, thus not very 'useful' or positing anything to our being and not. I also don't even think I understand it anymore or if I did, I think so but it expanded itself. — mlles

You need the concrete logical arguments with evidence based on the rational reasoning to put forward your ideas. But if you deny the logic and reasoning, then you have no feet to stand on to make your ideas and claim objective and acceptable.

Thereby trying to evade my critique by providing the rejoinder that it was a mischaracterization of your view (because you do not believe happiness is good). I, then, responded with: — Bob Ross

This sounds incredibly obtuse and irrelevant. My point was defining good wouldn't make one morally good, or more morally sensitive person. Rather, being able to reason what morally good actions are in the real life situations, which brings happiness to all parties would be more practical way to be morally apt person.

You are talking about something totally different in some other planet, from what I am talking about.

E.g., "where did you get that idea?": I don't know, maybe when you literally said it? — Bob Ross

Happiness is a state of mind, which is the purpose of life. This idea is from Aristotle, which inspired me to follow.

My point is simple, and precise. There is not much complication there.
Morally good actions bring happiness to all parties involved.
Happiness is a state of mind, which is the purpose of life.

You could further analyse what happiness is. We could say happiness is a mental state of mind, which is good and satisfactory. Good here is different from moral good of course. A good mental state is the opposite of a bad or unpleasant mental state, which is totally different from moral good.

I couldn't believe when you asked, can happiness be not good. I don't think I have implied or suggested that happiness is not good. Happiness is always good.
Good here is the quality of the mental state, which is happiness.

Moral good is the quality or value of some human actions when performed out of the moral duties and practical reasoning.