Is violence ethical, and if so, when and where? — john27

Yes. The Battle of Britain.

I don't think science would collapse. It would be like the beginning of the last century when they thought the subject of science was this 4 dimensional universe of macroscopic objects. Then the quantum cowboys came along and discovered weird things and it turned out that the ordinary physical universe is only a simple thing compared to the weird thing.

Likewise with mind-brain. If they discover non physical mind, brain stuff will seem relatively simple.

If there is no free will accountability becomes a mere social convenience and not a moral issue.

The observation here is quite specific: hell is immoral. The simple answer is that assuming god is good, then there is no hell, and various popular forms of christianity and other religions are simply wrong. — Banno

What if good ultimately involves allowing creation to risk suffering by being free?

The essence of the doctrine of The Fall is disobedience. And disobedience is its own punishment.
— EnPassant

That's like saying that drugs are bad because one disobeyed the order not to take them.
And not perhaps because they are toxic substances that mess up one's body. — baker

What I mean is that it leads to its own punishment.

A rich and powerful person can kill, rape, and pillage, and it has no bad consequences for them

What happens to them in the next life?

Scientism is the view that science is the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. — Raymond

I think in modern times the line between hypothesis and scientific knowledge is being blurred. The theory of evolution is often presented as done and dusted with only some loose ends to be tied up. The reality is, there are many gaping holes in it. (The theory is right in some aspects but it is far less complete than a lot of science writers pretend.) Another problem is the gene-of-the-gaps theory: all kinds of things are routinely explained away with vague references to genes. As a result people are wont to say things like "Cricket goes way back in our family, it is in our genes.". Likewise with the 'alcoholic gene'. That was very popular some years back but has gone out of fashion now. The line is being blurred between science and scientism and this is not a good development.

The problem is not science, it is the abuse of scientific knowledge, among other things. But scientism probably exacerbates anti science because it blurs the distinction between science and non science.

The question has to do with what the world is. Theists maintain there is a spiritual reality to the world. If the materialist denies the existence of that world it hardly exists for them in the same way as it does for the theist. So if you say theists and atheists live in the same world you deny the existence of the spiritual reality of the world.

It seems to me that 'equal rights' somehow got confused with 'equality'. People are not equal. Is an idiot equal to Einstein? No. A man equal to a woman? No, there are hormonal and emotional differences. Is a bird equal to a fish? Be careful how you answer or you might end up in jail...

Believers understand the world differently.
— EnPassant

So do bats, I'm told.

How can you tell? — Banno

That is my point. Do bats live in our world? The world of art, literature, commerce, finance, politics? If bats are not conscious of these worlds they can hardly live in them. And that's my point, it is a question of consciousness and whether theists are conscious in a different way.

Is faith exactly a matter of your opinions on certain questions (the reality of God, hell, and so on)? Is it just some propositions you assent to? — Srap Tasmaner

As said above, faith has more to do with consciousness than teachings or intellectual beliefs.

Believers do not experience a different world. — Banno

Believers understand the world differently. Even a mathematician or artist experiences the world differently. That is because they are conscious in a different way and is that not equivalent to experiencing a different world, if consciousness allows us to enter realms of reality that are beyond normal experience? But that would require levels of being beyond ordinary, everyday experience and this is exactly what theists would say exists.

What you are really saying is that a different world does not exist. More precisely, this physical world is all there is. But even some mathematicians believe mathematics is a 'Platonic' realm that is in some way real.

I am a theist, an artist and I study mathematics. These three aspects of consciousness do lead into levels of being that transcend the physical world.

As to Christianity, might we agree there was a time in the world when there was no such thing? And then, following on some events, there were such? And some of those meeting and considering the matter, established criteria for being Christian? And just these having an original claim as to what being a Christian is and isn't? — tim wood

I'm afraid the church is like a wagon that picks up a lot of sticky things on its wheels as it goes along. Christianity is full of pagan or useless ideas because some people like to decide what God wants before He even has a chance to tell them. One needs to be very discerning when it comes to what God wants of us.

As to Christianity, might we agree there was a time in the world when there was no such thing? — tim wood

The essence of Christianity is 'I am the Way.' The Tao is the way. So is Buddhism. Enoch, in genesis, 'walked with God'. There is a way of being and the way may have existed from the beginning.

:100:

And when you get to the pearly gates and Peter himself asks your warrant for presenting yourself, are you going to say that you're there because Joe the whackdoodle sent you? That is, claimed you were a Christian. — tim wood

That depends on what you mean by Christian. If by that you mean a person who lives according to God's Will - and indeed, if I live by God's Will - I guess I will have avoided many disasters and tears.

This seems to be the related paper: Divine Evil — Banno

I read the first few pages. The writer judges God by human lights and that is suspect from the beginning. The problem of evil is concerned with free will and while free will exists it is possible for people to misuse it. It is not that God punishes anyone - 'punishment', in scripture, seems more like a rhetorical admonishment, or warning, from God. But reality must be more complex than simple scripture can tell us. (the writer seems too literal about scripture)

The essence of the doctrine of The Fall is disobedience. And disobedience is its own punishment. You can see this any day of the week: the teenager is told, repeatedly, of the dangers of drug abuse. Does that deter him? Very often no. He will rebel and he will create his own hell on earth, because that is what hell is, our own creation. People create their own hell every day of the week.

But can't God show us how to live wisely so we won't turn our lives into hell? This is what religion is meant to do.

But people don't always listen. They want to live by their own lights even if that leads to hell. They will drink even if they risk ending up in the gutter. They will commit crimes even if that risks ending up in jail. God is the light by which we should live and if we turn away from it there is only darkness. Some are determined to go their own way. "My way or no way" - self will. No matter what the danger and no matter how many warnings "I will not serve". So be it.

- There are very few (or no) syntactic mistakes.
- The ideas are clear and well-written.
- It says something philosophically interesting.
- There are no logical fallacies.
- There is no plagiarism.
- The paper is on-topic.
- Forget about word counts, fonts, APA format, and all other 'peripheral' issues.

Does the paper get an "A?" Why or why not? — jasonm

Not necessarily. Logic and truth are not the same thing. A statement can be - or seem - logical but it may not be true.

Premise: Elephants fly.
Logic: Elephant poo falls from the sky.

Logical but not true. And that's one of the most difficult things about philosophy; the logic can be correct but a premise can have almost undetectable flaws.

What I am saying is that all opinion is subjective (of the subject). Agreement produces a sort of "intersubjectivity", whereby we say one's opinion is the same as another's. But intersubjectivity is still dependent on subjects, so it cannot support a definition of "objective" (of the object) which extends beyond the existence of subjects. — Metaphysician Undercover

What then about proofs that are independent of the subject? Proofs in Number Theory that are demonstrably true? For example $\phi(n), \tau(n), d(n) etc$ are indisputable values. They are what they are beyond any subject's opinion of them.

That something is "undecidable" is an opinion.

Godel's theorem demonstrates the reality of undecidables.

if a mental event M supervenes on a physical event P, and P causes a further physical event P* on which a further mental event M* supervenes, serious doubt can be cast on the claim that M causes M*. The account at the physical level of how P causes P*, together with the supervenient relations, is sufficient to account for the occurrence of M*. The M-to-M* doesn’t seem to be a genuine causal relation. — Ignoredreddituser

It depends on whether M causes P. If M does not happen and as a result P does not happen then P* does not happen and M* does not happen. This means that M* does not happen unless M happens, which sounds suspiciously like M indirectly causing M*

I think a non physical event can supervene/intervene in a physical chain of events-
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4458/determinism-and-mathematical-truth/p1

Here is the main argument-

Extreme determinsts maintain that the physical universe is just an outworking of the laws of nature and everything is predetermined by these laws. It is even argued that our brains are determined by neurological processes etc that are physically deterministic.

There seems to be a way around this determinism. It involves making a list of possible actions and making a choice from that list in such a way that the choice is not determined by either neurological states or any physical state in the world.

Here is how it works. Make a list of ordinary events and label them 0 to 9.

0. Read a book
1. Go to the library
2. Play tennis
3. Drive your car
4. Go to the cinema
5. Go to the supermarket
6. Listen to the radio
7. ...
8. ...
9. ...

Next get the decimal expansion of an irrational number such as the square root of 11
or 1/23.

Let us take the square root of 11

The square root of 11 is 3.3166247903554

Now take the first digit in the decimal expansion, 3
and go to your list;

3 = Drive your car

the next is 1

1 = Go to the library

6 = Listen to the radio

etc.

Now our choice is not determined by any physical or neurological state. It is determined by purely non physical mathematical entities. So we seem to have broken with any previously determinism by letting digits make our choice for us. If we are in the library, for example, we are engaged with a series of physical activities that, as a set, cannot be traced back to any previous physical state because the digit intervened and determined what set of physical events we would enter into.

Is there a mathematical and or logical expression for comparing the properties and lack of properties of Objects? — Josh Alfred

You seem to be talking about Boolean algebra.

What you are demonstrating is that the set {///} has the value signified by 3. Do you not accept the fact that mathematics works with values? If "{///}" means the same as "3", and "3" means the same as "{///}" then you have a vicious circle of definition. But clearly this is not the case in set theory. Sets have all sorts of different values like cardinality, extensionality, etc.. To say "there are no values ascribed here" is rather ridiculous. — Metaphysician Undercover

But you are talking about subjective value: something that can be open to disagreement. How can there be disagreement about the cardinality of a finite set? And if there was disagreement about the cardinality of infinite sets it would not be because of subjective opinion it would be highly technical and concerned with Godel's undecidable issues - such as the cardinal in the continuum hypothesis which was shown, by Cohen, to be undecidable.

1. if the universe was temporally infinite, then there would be no 1st moment
2. if there was no 1st moment, then there was no 2nd moment
3. if there was no 2nd moment, then there was no 3rd moment
4. ... and so on and so forth ...
5. ... then there would be no now
6. since now exists, we started out wrong, i.e. the universe is not temporally infinite — jorndoe

Infinity is not endless counting 1, 2, 3,...
It is a set. The set of all numbers simultaneously in one set. Eternity is all time.

First of all an infinite universe implies that everything that is possible is actual, even contradictory things. — Wosret

An infinite universe does not have to contain everything. You can have an infinity of even numbers 2, 4, 6,... but that infinity does not contain any odd number.

The symbols used in mathematics represent values, as I described, "2" represents a value. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see it that way. Numbers are sets that arise out of iteration and partition.
Start with /
Iterate //
Reiterate ///
etc /////////////////////////////...
Partition each step into {/} {//} {///} {////} {/////}...These are sets. Numbers are sets.
In familiar symbols these are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,...
This is how set theory defines numbers. There are no values ascribed here.

What is often missed, is that mathematics itself is a value structure, and is therefore dependent on, and based in "value judgement". What has occurred through the history of humanity is that we have achieved significant levels of agreement, convention, concerning these value judgements of mathematics, and this has produced great confidence in the notion that "objective knowledge" is produced by mathematics. In reality this knowledge is better classed as 'inter-subjective'. — Metaphysician Undercover

Can you give an example of how mathematics is a value judgement. I suppose they are very few.

Science is a valid mode of knowing.
Philosophy is a valid mode of knowing.
Art is a valid mode of knowing.
Theology is a valid mode of knowing.

The problem is when science is epistemologically privileged over the others as a mode of knowing. Unfortunately we are in an era where the materialist reductionist perspective is dominant. — emancipate

Exactly. Science is concerned with primitive knowledge because it is concerned with matter which is primitive. Science cannot make informed judgements about ontological questions and questions about consciousness and being. These things require a higher language. The problem today is that scientism makes people believe that the language of science is the only valid language.

Some argue matter and energy have equivalency. — TiredThinker

In practical terms they are equivalent but energy precedes matter in the sense that you cannot have matter unless you have energy.

Has anyone here ever wondered if there is anything more real than this life? Maybe even thought that there had to be something more real? — TiredThinker

Matter is an image of energy. Energy is more real than matter. The material world is an image of real things. Things of the mind and spirit. These are more real than matter.

But how to feel reality without using rationality? — Ergo sum

Eat an orange. Now you know what an orange is without rational knowledge. You have knowledge by way of taste. There are many categories of knowledge and ways to knowledge - experience, consciousness...

An individual subscribes to an idea or philosophy due to their personal biases and intuitions. — clemogo

I think there are far more compelling reasons than mere confirmation bias etc. Our reasons for believing are very complex and varied.

An evolved predatory logic must be by it's nature remain incapable to:
1. Understand truths that can not be chased and exploited in a physical sense (which come to mind?)
2. Understand things that are not relevant to survival such as what is "the good". — FalseIdentity

I agree with the general drift of your argument. Evil is often about rigid control whereas the good allows the world to be free: instead of possessing life, good shares in its freedom. 'Logic' and science are easy means of control and possession and are therefore prone to serving evil. Evil is control, good is letting go. When evil tries to rigidly possess life it kills it and turns it into not life.

Is there any part of the world that is demonstrably non mathematical?

It only leaves a physical trace effect when it is being detected. Otherwise we don't know where it is, because it is nowhere (in physical spacetime). Detection means that the particle is made to create a trace effect in physical terms. This trace effect allows us to say where the particle is in 4d spacetime. But we can't really say the particle is 'there' we can only say the trace effect is 'there'. The trace effect may be particle-like but that does not mean the thing that made if is a particle. The trace effect may be wave-like but that does not mean the thing is a wave. 'Particle' and 'wave' are concepts that derive from the ordinary, physical 4d spacetime geometry. We don't really know what the thing is but it is convenient to call it a particle. We only know that there is a thing that leaves particle/wave-like trace effects. The thing that is doing this is an unknown.

Yes, but I'm speaking only about geometry/spacetime. Spacetime is a geometric concept. In real terms everything is 'here' but in geometric terms there are two geometries, quantum and ordinary 4d physical geometry. Location is a geometric concept. A particle can leave a trace effect at a location in 4d spacetime but where was it before/after it left that trace effect? Bohr says this question cannot be answered and that effectively means it is not located in a 4d geometry it is in quantum spacetime.

It is located in 4d spacetime.

Then what about the screen with the spot? — Cartuna

The spot is in this physical universe. That is, its location is in terms of 4d spacetime. The thing that made the spot/trace effect, is no longer observable and not in our 4d universe in the sense that it cannot be located here. Outside detection (ie interaction with a physical device) nothing can be said about its location.

I'm quite sympathetic to the idea that, say, photons don't exist in space-time between their creation and destruction. Makes a lot of sense to me. I'm not sure how it would work for massive particles... — Kenosha Kid

As I understand it there are two spacetimes (from a geometric point of view that is.) If the mathematics of ordinary physical spacetime is different to the mathematics of the quantum world then we are dealing with two geometries and two spacetimes. Chairs and tables live in physical spacetime, 'particles' live in quantum spacetime.

BOTH spacetimes are here in this ontological space because space is two things. It is a geometry and it is also a positive existence. It has being. Within this positive being we call space there are two geometries (at least): quantum geometry and ordinary physical geometry or spacetime. Both of them are HERE but are geometrically distinct. When a 'particle' collides with a physical object it leaves a trace effect in physical spacetime (eg a spot on a photographic plate). We don't observe particles, we observe trace effects. These trace effects are necessarily in ordinary physical spacetime because they are physical objects. This trace effect marks a location in physical spacetime and we say the 'particle' was 'there'. But what is 'there' is really a trace effect. The particle is nowhere in physical spacetime.

It used to be called "wavefunction reduction", and simply meant that, before measurement, we don't know if the system is in state A, B, C, etc. (or some mixture), but after measurement we know it's A so we "reduce" the description to that. — Kenosha Kid

Another complication involves the word 'where'. Where is the particle? Particles exist in quantum spacetime which is mathematically different from ordinary 4D spacetime. So what do we mean by 'where'? What location in what spacetime are we talking about? Bohr said it is meaningless to say where a particle is outside detection. Maybe he means it is nowhere. Nowhere in 4D spacetime that is. It lives in its own quantum spacetime. A 'location' arises when a particle collides with our 4D spacetime (ie a physical detection apparatus). The particle must appear to be located in our 4D spacetime because the detection apparatus is in our spacetime. But 'where' was the particle prior to detection? Nowhere!

Is the wave function collapsed or not? — SolarWind

I think the collapse of the wave function is only a manner of speaking. Nothing collapses in real terms. The wave function is only an abstract way of grasping the mystery. Suppose you have 50 possible destinations that you can go to. This is the abstract space that you contemplate. You make a decision on one destination so the other 49 possibilities 'vanish'. But nothing collapses in real terms. Possibilities vanish, that is all.