That is to say, it is wrong, but we don't "realize it" until some contingent time in our historical development. — schopenhauer1

it would be to not harm unnecessarily and to not overlook someone's dignity — schopenhauer1

The moral sentiment is where the normative is grounded in. Otherwise, it is arbitrary and can be anything. — schopenhauer1

It might not even be better by being necessarily "innovative" as much as more understood in detail — schopenhauer1

There is no objective way to phrase it. Morality is mainly about emotional appeal. — schopenhauer1

What once was seen as perfectly moral might be seen as excessively overlooking life. — schopenhauer1

I think limitations are lived out and options are touted. I don't know if that makes sense to you. — schopenhauer1

What is lived and what is summarized can be different. — schopenhauer1

People really don't see what is not phrased in a way to allow them to open up their perspective. — schopenhauer1

It's precisely because people don't see the perspective that ANs are proposing a new way to look at it. — schopenhauer1

I don't know where you get this idea about objectivity and extent. — schopenhauer1

But is that meeting the threshold of "overly controlling pervasive parts of the lifeguard's very being and overlooking the lifeguard's negative experiences egregiously over a long period of time for an X cause"? I don't think tapping the lifeguard meets this. — schopenhauer1

And yet it still doesn't mean it's right. — schopenhauer1

You have been making a tacit and explicit argument from majority. — schopenhauer1

And I doubt anyone discovered any new limits or types of suffering that they didn’t know of before. And yet they were not antinatalists. Because they don’t think those things go over the threshold. — khaled

Well, if people enslave someone in some country, that doesn't mean its right. — schopenhauer1

People really don't see what is not phrased in a way to allow them to open up their perspective. — schopenhauer1

You just admitted here that Palestinians are genocidal — BitconnectCarlos

And why can't Palestine's Arab neighbors absorb them as immigrants? — BitconnectCarlos

We're here and we're not going anywhere. — BitconnectCarlos

The Arab countries just don't care about the Palestinians and that not Israel's problem. — BitconnectCarlos

If you're a Palestinian then I'm sorry your fellow Arabs have failed you. — BitconnectCarlos

Some advice - we're going to have to be willing to put these blood feuds behind us if our groups want to make peace. — BitconnectCarlos

Rockets are being fired into Israel from residential areas which basically forces Israel to respond by striking residential areas. — BitconnectCarlos

Arab world which has accepted their right to exist so it is possible. — BitconnectCarlos

Yet this changed. Was slavery (or pick anything similar) right because the majority thought it so? — schopenhauer1

people will see that this too meets the threshold — schopenhauer1

Slavery was wrong then as is now, it’s just people’s capacity or perspective to understand this that changed. — schopenhauer1

There has never been any Israeli plot to genocide either the Palestinians or the Arabs. — BitconnectCarlos

I could throw the same thing back at you - why are the Palestinians trying to wipe every Israeli Jew off the face of the Earth? — BitconnectCarlos

We could do this all day. Is this a productive line of conversation? — BitconnectCarlos

Jews are the indigenous inhabitants of Israel and they were the ones ethnically cleansed when they were originally expelled from their homeland by occupying powers. — BitconnectCarlos

And of course, more whataboutism from you. Expected from a racist — StreetlightX

Why are we talking about Israel? — BitconnectCarlos

Lets talk about the Arab countries today, no more Israel talk. — BitconnectCarlos

Who knows, we just want to make them feel bad! :brow: — BitconnectCarlos

I've heard of many cases where foreigners can't even get a home to live in if they don't speak Japanese. — Manuel

China is quite racist actually and Japan as well for that matter. — Manuel

How about the Arabs countries? You think they love Jews over there? — BitconnectCarlos

Example: Calls to prayer in Muslim countries that are broadcast everywhere — BitconnectCarlos

Evolution could just has easily ended with blue-green algae if survival was the sole criteria. — Wayfarer

Conversely, if survival is the only aim, then man’s ability to question its meaning is utterly superfluous. — Wayfarer

In so many arguments against physicalists or atheists, the critique is actually about the view's ostensible ugliness, its randomness, emptiness, inadequateness, stuntedness. — Tom Storm

But more properly I don't and can't know. I suspect people often choose their answers for aesthetic reasons. — Tom Storm

That's the million-dollar question, isn't it? How would we find out? — Wayfarer

For instance, the belief that evolution develops towards any particular end, like higher levels of intelligence, is rejected by naturalism on the grounds that it's orthogenetic. — Wayfarer

But strictly speaking, that doesn't actually rule out that there are factors beyond its scope — Wayfarer

The response that I'm now inclined towards is that naturalism has to exclude consideration of what it considers 'supernatural' as a matter of definition — Wayfarer

There are a host of questions considered signicant in philosophy that fall under that description, around the nature of reason, purpose, meaning, order and chaos, and other such broad and general subjects. — Wayfarer

that appears the two only options, right? — Wayfarer

So in the Old Worlde, it was assumed everything is guided by a divine intelligence. — Wayfarer

for instance the idea that life arises by chance — Wayfarer

And even if we find pretty words to describe science, is it not a believe of how the world is made out of, but more - similar to religion - what we want the world to be made out of? Is this idea of »it is how it is«, not actually how we want it to be, because it makes us feel safe and understood or maybe even free? — Anna893

As above.
— khaled

You backup your claim by just asserting "physicists agree with you", without providing any "well controlled experiment" of how this is even supported? — boethius

Yes we can because if it did the interference pattern wouldn't emerge. — khaled

But we can KNOW that the electron, unlike the drowning person, doesn’t “really exist somewhere” that we are finding out correct? Or else interference effects wouldn’t happen. — khaled

and we agree that the "substance" of the electron, in some sense, is represented by the probability distribution, which has wave characteristics and can interfere with itself to make interference patterns etc. — boethius

But, even so, who cares? — boethius

I don't know what we're debating here. — boethius

so in principle, as far as we know, it's possible with people too — boethius

Collapse does not happen backwards. All the possibilities related to t1, t2, t3, and t4 can be still "in play" and those possibilities are still co-existing at t5 as well, but when we make a measurement at t5, all the other possibilities "that could have happened" go away. — boethius

Definiteness occurs at observation, how would we check it occurred before? how would we check it occurred before? We'd have to go and observe what occurred before, defeating the purpose of the checking. — boethius

There is zero problem saying plenty of other possibilities "co-existed" until the first consciousness emerged to make such observations to collapse the wave function. — boethius

All possible cosmologies propagate from the big bang, and then the cosmic wave collapse happens and one definite cosmological history is "retained" once a "sufficient" consciousness emerges (in at least one of the possible cosmologies) and the wave function collapses. — boethius

The "probability waves going away" happen at that moment or before. If you argue "before", how do you prove it? — boethius

They don't all agree on an interpretation. — boethius

No, we can't know. — boethius

How would you backup your claim? — boethius

Does that establish you "know" the person is in a definite position before you go and check? No, it doesn't establish that. — boethius

The other possibilities "go away" upon observation, just like any other experiment. — boethius

It is not the case that when the wave functions "collapses" that a particle is then considered to have taken a definite path — boethius

Before anyone was conscious of what possibility the universe is actually in, there's no way to go back and check whether the possibilities co-existed in a quantum probability wave sense (or any sense) or then definite situations followed one to the other even if there was no one around to see it. — boethius

If there was an obvious conclusion to be drawn, the best physicists of the last hundred years would have drawn it and all agreed. — boethius

We do not need to make ontological assumptions about what "really exists" between measurements to make use of quantum mechanics. — boethius

I've already mentioned, it can just be supposed that all the possibilities propagate, including ones in which evolution happens, and the first possible consciousness collapses the cosmic wave function. No problem, no one's conscious before that to say otherwise — boethius

It is not the case that when the wave functions "collapses" that a particle is then considered to have taken a definite path, only the properties observed become more definite for the time of observation, but it is still the case that the particle in some way (we really don't understand) when through all possible paths to get to that observation point — boethius

But why, in principle, can't the plug-and-play evolutionary explanation fit here too? — csalisbury

people invoke them without any robust explanation of the details - it's just a 'well the evolutionary explanation is certainly the most acceptable way to couch my point, so let me cobble together a few things quickly that sound plausible enough : dinner with your boss is like a lion.' — csalisbury

If we don't have new information, we cannot say what is happening other than the probability distributions that we already have based on old information. — boethius

I very much doubt this is true. — boethius

What 'matter'? That's the problem! What is measured appears as waves or as particles. But, you're saying, behind what is measured there is 'the matter that already exists'. But that is the point at issue! What is being measured? We can't say what is 'behind' the measurement. One set-up produces a wave pattern, the other a particle pattern. Is it really waves or is it really particles? You can't say! That's the paradox, the whole issue in a nutshell. — Wayfarer

We can't say that they are attributes of some underlying neither-wave-nor-particle stuff. — Wayfarer

The answer you get depends on the question you ask, and you're severely limited in infering what is the case beyond that - or rather, there's nothing in physics which will provide you with a warrant for that kind of speculation. — Wayfarer

That there isn't 'a particle'. You're observing different results, but they're not 'of' something that acts in a certain way. — Wayfarer

Again, you do not understand my point nor the mathematics of quantum mechanics. — boethius

The only way to make sense of this is to say the electron does not "move" in a classical sense between A and B and when we look we find where it "really is" but rather the electron somehow co-exists in some sense in both regions, but when we look to find the electron in region A, then somehow it's "existence" in region B disappears. — boethius

This is what happens mathematically, and "collapsing the wave of probabilities" to the new reality, is a sensical way to describe the mathematical process of updating a model with new information — boethius

such as simply stating first wave collapsing at some threshold of consciousness or something along those lines — boethius

It is not the case that when the wave functions "collapses" that a particle is then considered to have taken a definite path — boethius

evolution happens in every possibility, and then collapses to the first possibility of consciousness — boethius

but, as a Kantian, it's not really surprising that whatever we can say of the "noumena" always remains fundamentally speculative anyways — boethius

I think the so-called 'wave function collapse' is not necessarily something that happens objectively - it's not a literal change of state. It's not that matter exists in some non-collapsed state, waiting for someone to measure it, so it can collapse and thereby begin to exist. — Wayfarer

The issue arises from reconciling the wave-function equation, which describes the state of the object before it is measured, with the act of measurement — Wayfarer

What we call reality consists of a few iron posts of observation between which we fill in by an elaborate paper maché constructions of imagination and theory.

There's no wave collapse in MWI, as the idea there is all possibilities really exist in some physical definite state and new universes pop into existence every time there is a quantum fork in the road. — boethius

"Wave collapse" is the idea there's only one universe that doesn't split at every quantum fork in the road, but the possibilities collapse into one path going forward. — boethius

It's just in one interpretation if we go "forward in time" with our equations we see a range of possibilities and "predict" one of those possibilities will "actually happen" for observers at that moment in time. — boethius

in MWI we go forward in time with our equations and we see the same possibilities but assert every possibility corresponds to a real "universe" (which should really be called "subverse" to the real universe of all these possibilities actually existing). — boethius

This is just what "science" means. If you setup your cookie experiment but never look at the results, but assure me the cookie is definitely either there or it isn't even if you don't look, I'll ask "how do you know". The only way for you to "know" is to go and check, but you're claiming to know even if you don't check. — boethius

Again, address this: Consciousness evolved yes? In order for that to happen we needed to have collapsed, well defined molecules at least yes? And eventually after enough time a conscious thing evolved from these molecules yes?

Then how can consciousness be a requirement for wave function collapse? If it was, it would’ve never evolved. — khaled

There is no inconsistency with MWI. — boethius

This is what I am explaining; the only for us to resolve this question scientifically, is to setup an experiment and then for us to both become conscious or the result. — boethius

what is "really in the box" when we aren't looking is a unfalsefiable claim, as to falsefy a claim about what's "really in the box" we need to open the box and look — boethius

What I am saying is that where it at first seems like you can never be "wrong" about your own evaluations, perhaps, there is an objectively "right" view here as well that is more accurate — schopenhauer1

I think it is analogous to life really, and not that far off. — schopenhauer1

What is unknown is the immense amounts of contingent harms such as emotional anguish, physical ailments, disasters, annoyances, and a vast, very long list of other things that a person can experience and be. — schopenhauer1

Taking the challenges of the limitations (I call this "necessary suffering" as it is systemic to existence as a human mainly) and the contingent harms, we have a sufficiently large enough qualitative and quantitative amount of (for lack of better word) "stuff" that would count for pervasive controlling and overlooking of the negative aspects done to someone else. This would then cause the dignity violation. — schopenhauer1

Now, from here, you will say, "I deem it not sufficient". And so be it. At this point we can at least agree that individuals must make up their own mind as to whether to argument makes a logical, emotional, or other appeal. I am fine with that — schopenhauer1

Okay. Again, I present my case. That's all I can do — schopenhauer1

There is a threshold of some kind, where something that is not wrong, becomes wrong with a sufficient (as you call it) extent. — schopenhauer1

I don't want to keep repeating all the negatives that one is overlooking on someone else's behalf, but I think it is a large enough in quantity and quality that it does cross the threshold. — schopenhauer1

I have given numerous (not directly in this thread, but look at my corpus as a whole for this) accounts of the negatives which we are often not seeing, or perhaps just not clearly reasoning it out — schopenhauer1