A little help to understand my prevous post: B is not the same as BuC, and BuC is not the same as BuCuC, .... and no configuration of B (n* uC) is the same as b ((n-1)* uC).

B here is a given configuration of matter, C is a subconfiguration of B, and BuC means B union C, because u means union (as in set theory) and n is any positive integer greater than 1.

Therefore, if the universe / space is infinite, it can only be due to repetition since the number of unique things that can exist is apparently finite. — Zelebg

Simple proof that your theory is false:

Let's assume that the space is infinite and physical manifestation is limited to a finite (not infinite) number of possible arrangement.

Let 's further assume, that A represents the number of possible configurations, B represents any configuration, and C represents a subconfiguration to B.

In this case all you have to do is add C to B, and you got an additional number, A+1, to represent the possible configurations of matter. Obviously A+1 is a number greater than A, and B union C is a unique, new representation.

Now let's assume A' is A+1 and B' is B union C. Repeat the experience, and you realize this experience can be repeated without any ending, and with forever producing A' from A and getting a larger number every time, and with forever producing B' from B without repeating the same configuration.

It seems the wisdom of the crowd is restricted to quantity. I'm not sure about it though. I think it fails in qualitative phenomena. — TheMadFool

Karl Marx sprach: "All qualitative changes are preceded by quantitative changes." (Alle Qualitatsbesonderswerbgevernenscheissverwandlungen geschehen nach Quantitatsbesonderswerbgevernenscheissverwandlungen.")

↪christian2017I should've posted this in the math section. — TheMadFool

No, shouldn't have. (Also sprach das Crowd.)

Instead "Can I remain the same?" ask yourself, "can I remain sane?" in an eternal life.

Boredom will set in sooner or later. You will be so bored you can't fathom it without going insane. Even if all the material and intellectual and spiritual pleasures will constantly surround you and change around you, you will wish you'd have died and got out of the confines of knowing everything you can know, experiencing everything you can experience.

Torturing babies for pleasure is morally wrong. — PuerAzaelis

Depending on for whose pleasure: yours or the babies'.

Women who support each other through an experience of abuse, and even those who strive to minimise occasions of sexual harassment are not necessarily plotting your demise, and don’t specifically mean to exclude you. — Possibility

They want all men to perish. Not all of these women, but most of them. Their hate is what I hate. They are violent in their writings, they just want to see blood.

You never encountered such rabid feminists? I would be surprized to hear you haven't.

what morality has to do with liberty and democracy — Athena

Yes, according to you, what does morality have to do with liberty and democracy? I am curious about your precise opinion. What is the core value in morality? Who put it there? Not god, please let's not get silly. How do we decide what is moral and what is not? What is it in a moral action that separates it from a simply good action? If I see a man drowning in a river, and I jump in the foaming waves, and save him, was that moral, or good? If either, why, and why not the other?

Put it to liberty and democracy. What is a good citizen to do that is moral? Why is his moral action moral, and not simply good? What is the difference between a good social act, and a moral social act?

And if there is a difference that you can find, Athena, who is the authority that decides with you? Are you the decision maker, or is there an objectively measured, always-true benchmark to separate the good from the moral? If not, why are we talking about morals in the first place?

The important question is, did humans evolve or were they created special by a God who then cursed them resulting all our suffering, because we are sinful and can not do better without supernatural intervention. Can human beings achieve excellence without the help of a supernatural power or are they doomed by a condition of sin and must they have authority above them and must that authority hold the ability to punish them to control them? — Athena

Europe does not even ask this question. Obviously there is no supernatural power that is consistently interfering with the world's affairs on an individual basis or on group basis. This is a question to ask Americans. I live in Canada, but in this aspect I am very European.

Such as using "black crime" statistics as an arbitrary form of racial discrimination, even against black lawyers, doctors, scientists, etc who have never committed a crime, while ignoring that white criminals do exist. — IvoryBlackBishop

Very true.

But once a racist does not have to stay a racist. I used to be extremely prejudiced in my teens, twenties and thirties, then I grew out of it as I matured. To wit, even in my thirties and twenties I thought I was not racist, but I was. Deeply. Why? I don't know. The typical, I guess, because I am very gullible. Extremely analytical, but very gullible. Now it hurts me, not just as a pretence reaction, when someone says something racist.

Sexist? I think I am still a bit sexist. I normally am not, but if you show me to a rabid feminist, then she will brand me as such. And then I see red. The most anti-feminist trait in me right now is a defensive reaction: when I see things like "abused women's circle meets here at 7 pm" or "poets against sexual harrassment" or "stop child abuse in the world" then I take it on me, and want to punch whoever is advocating the movement, because I feel it is directed straight at me: a fat, short, past middle aged male man.

It has come to the attention of our creator that we're not fully cognizant of many facts that pertain to our world. It worries him a lot and he has asked me to convey to you all a clarification, perhaps a revelation if I may say so. — TheMadFool

Did you take down the Caller Id of the Creator when he called you? Or did make a note of his email address? This could be valuable information for, among other people, the Pope, Kevin Kavanagh, Jordan Peterson, and last but not least, me.

I'd sell the contact information to the highest bidder on eBay, if I were you.

The most threatening danger to our country is not forgien. It is internal. — Athena

"The single biggest obstacle to make progress in the war efforts in Viet Nam is presented by the public resistance at home", the White House announced. (News, 1980.)

As you can see, the danger lies at home, always at home, always, always, always at home; but what someone considers danger to be, is always different. "Where you stand is determined by where you sit."

So you see, Athena, there used to be a voice heard once in America; the voice of the people. But they poof-poofed them down, one-by-one, like they do rabid dogs: JFK, MLK, MTK, FTC. What are we left with? KFC and Walmart.

Listen to some old and new Neil Young songs.

Also, watch this:

If you care, please, come look at my books. — Athena

I could look at your books, but I must warn you, that though I used to work in the audit department in a major bank, I am not an expert in accounting principles. If you need some advice re: taxes, or bank loans, I would suggest you talk to a CRA, or CA, or a RPA. If the problem is simple, maybe even an accounting student could help you. Or if it's really huge, such as you may suspect that a bookkeeper in your concern is embezzling, then you need a forensic accountant.

Do you watch movies about teachers who have made a real difference in students' lives? — Athena

The movies that made a real difference for me were where the students made a real difference in their teachers' lives.

Don't ask me, please, for the titles, because I am hopeless at remembering trivial information.

One such movie was where a literature teacher comes home, brings home the homework assingments of his grade 11 students, and moans and groans to his wife as he reads them. The assignment was "What I did in my summer holidays" and the essays followed: "Watched TV." that was the entire essay. "I hate stupid homework assingments on what I did on my summer holidays." That was the essay. ETC.

Until the teacher starts to read a few lines of a more meaty essay, and his eyes bulge out. This kid produced a literary piece that the teacher (no doubt a writer-wannabe in his youth) only dreamed of ever writing.

In the rest of the movie he embraces the kids' education, but in my opinion the teacher's approach is stupid; he keeps on severely criticising the kid. That's not the way to foster creativity. The kid gets involved with a very good looking married woman, but nothing ever happens.The movie from there fizzes out, and I was fast asleep by the time the last ten-twenty minutes rolled out.

I bawled my eyes out at the moment when the teacher's eyes bulged out. The kid was so much what I had been.

---------

Another movie in which the student made a difference in the life of the teacher was where a female teacher has a physical affair with a boy, and she gets expelled by the profession. It was not so much focussed on the boy or on the effect, but rather on Judy Drench, who played the host for this hapless young teacher, whom the media was chasing down. Judy played her real life role, a closet Lesbian, who only kept the young lady who was straight, in her home, so that she (Judy) could live out her sexual fantasies on her.

--------

The third example is a song, by Sting:

You consider me the young apprentice
Caught between the Scylla and Charybdis
Hypnotized by you if I should linger
Staring at the ring around your finger

I have only come here seeking knowledge
Things they would not teach me of in college
I can see the destiny you sold
Turned into a shining band of gold

I'll be wrapped around your finger
I'll be wrapped around your finger

Mephistopheles is not your name
I know what you're up to just the same
I will listen hard to your tuition
You will see it come to its fruition

I'll be wrapped around your finger
I'll be wrapped around your finger

Devil and the deep blue sea behind me
Vanish in the air you'll never find me
I will turn your face to alabaster
When you will find your servant is your master

You'll be wrapped around my finger
You'll be wrapped around my finger
You'll be wrapped around my finger
You'll be wrapped around my finger

It's by Sting, the song is called "Wrapped around your finger", and you can hear it here on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svWINSRhQU0

I skimmed over your essay. I'll give a more thorough read later. It seems to me that you reason your preference well, supporting it with your rejection of nihilism, infinitism, etc. But it still remains, as it is put forth, a description of personal preference. It has not excluded cynicism with a logical reason, it has excluded cynicism with the aid of personal preferences. Which is interesting:
- if you become very famous, like a discovery that you are a long-lost royal, or else a movie star or a mass murderer
- to your family and close friends
- to your psychiatrist or workplace psychologist, who is examining you for fitness to fly to the moon
and possibly even back
- penultimately, to your own self. "The unexamined self is not worth much."

But as a no-name philosopher (I am not putting you down; we all use aliases here, so you could be Shlomo Einstein or Chris Russell or Jean-Paul Descartes for all I know) this is actually not a big deal. It seems important for you, which is fine, but I feel a bit gypped because the inherent reward of discovering your preferences for me is not big enough a payoff for the expense of mentally writhing my way through your essays.

The essays were well written, a bit dense, but that's better than being too airy. It takes time to get through, and it takes (for me at least) more than one reading to get it fully.

↪god must be atheist Too bad that. More free time makes more sense.
But...if you think having life be easier and more pleasure for those who would prefer it...is something to scorn...show it as much contempt as you want. — Frank Apisa

I apologize. I did not mean to scorn you. I just quoted an old song by Ray Charles, and I used your name instead of the one, "Jack", which was used in the song. A creative effort. But I see now how damaging it must have been. So I apologize to you. Sorry.

1. Broken\ link. "File not found. 404."

essay Against Cynicism, — Pfhorrest

This free online encyclopedia has achieved what Wikipedia can only dream of

What's your favourite article? — Banno

Mine is "The reason why limp social questions without philosophical content or argument pass for thought-provoking opening posts which would normally be required to have a philosophical content, inviting debate."

You should read it, Banno.

Which is just? Your paying the $5, or not paying the $5?

the justice on this one is hazier, and there's no need to use this as an example. I already cited an example and one clear example is all I need for the concept of justice. — BitconnectCarlos

Very convenient, BCC. You conveniently use your example, because it fits your way of thinking, and discount other examples that go against your way of thinking.

You display the spirit of Bible studies. You cherry-pick the parables, make a bit of a different interpretation from the literal meaning of the text, and bang, you got your point supported by the Bible.

I am not saying you are a Bible-Thumper, BCC, but you are practicing an eerily close approximation to the process of Bible interpretation by Christians. Reject the inconvenient, emphasize the supportive.

Well done.

NUMBER ONE.

Thanks, Athena, for the clarification.

I both agree with you and not agree with you. I agree that people must learn how to think for themselves, and that we are all individuals. We are all different. (Well... I am not, but that's a different issue.)

But where we differ is the teaching of core subjects such as math, physics and chemistry. Those subjects are ridiculously under-taught in high school in north America. Especially in the USA.

If you want to teach independent thought, you must let the kids develop logical thinking and an ability to question, and an ability to answer. That can be fostered easily and almost automatically by challenging the kids with mental exercises. How to solve a math problem. How to solve a physics problem. These are things that develop the mind.

The mind is also a very flexible thing. It can transport skills from one area of the brain to another. If the kid learns how to quickly solve math problems, instead of being death scared of them, then he will gain confidence and brain power to solve moral dilemmas.

The problem with education in North America is not the heavy leaning on SAT subjects; it is a problem of heavy leaning on making the kids do mindless busy work. To give them homework that they can copy and paste from wikipaedia, instead of giving them age-appropriate logic problems that will exercise their brains, not their ability to cheat.

Yes, the USA has long been supporting an education system of mindless busywerk, that fosters kids to pull levers in factories all day long, go home and drink beer in front of the tv and fall asleep in a blissful state that they are doing the right thing for self, family and the nation.

Why people cheer at more work? Because they are Americans. It is a deeply rooted moral, social and economic reality for Americans to work. Even the richest person in America is "working". It is a shame, really, in America to be not working. It means you are poor, and furhtermore, that you are lazy, no good, hit the road, Frank, and don't you come back no more no more no more hit the road Frank and don't you come back no more.

To work is more a privilege and a right, and more a responsibility and a duty in America, than it was ever was in the now defunct communist countries during communist era, where it was the LAW that everyone must work, unless disabled. You had the right and the responsibility to work. If you were put out, the gov found you a job in a few days. IN America the same thing, but not by the LAW, but by the pressure of public MORALS.

A work of fiction that is very insightful. Want a a documentary? Visit a male prison. — Nobeernolife

There are lots of other issues in prison than testosterone. If you were correct, then conditions of prisoner relations in female prisons would not be so similar to those in male prisons.

Your response is not thought through.

Oh, dear @Athena, just one more thing: and when I try to come up with something how my opinion relates to education, is that in relation to all subjects in school, or to specific subjects in school?

thanks, Athena! This is what I got you found beautiful:
"Good point. I have to choose between "acceptable to society" and "useful for society". I choose "Whatever is useful," because it is acceptable. Whatever is neutral, is acceptable. Whatever is bad, is unaccepable. Thus, whatever is good, is moral; whatever is neutral, is amoral; whatever is bad (damaging), is immoral.

The above apply to practicalities in society. These practicalities are judged for moralilty or immorality by the society's ruling class, which could be a stratum of society, a person, or the entire society. The ruler (individual, class, or entire society) will force his or their or her will to make society accept what she he or they deem to be moral."

How it applies to education? Formal or informal? That is, formal education in school, or in peer-induced or authority-induced informal education?

When I brought it up you completely ignored it and acted as though I had an unreasonable expectation in asking you to follow the discussion. Now you want me to quote myself for you, but Im sorry to say that I have no reason to expect you will do any better if I put in that effort.
Hard pass. — DingoJones

You also did not reply to my challenge.

I have no problem with that. You refused to quote your own self, fine, but then don't give me a hard time for not following through with the posts.

In fact, to me this site is fun, I don't use it as an exercise in responsibility to reply to all the lines of all the posts that have been written to me. If that's what it means to you, well, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Morality is a way.

Though it can be pointed to, the pointer would be more in one corner of a square or rectanglar path, metaphorically.

In effort to point out the way, I would need to square it; including each corner of the path. Thus, morality has four definitions.

Try defining morality with one point and there is a regress.

For example, morality is judgement orientated beneficent progress.

A. Excludes that which is good progression, without adult judgement. Can be contradicted.

B. Excludes that which is maleficent but good.

C. Excludes that morality isn't - in a sense - because thinking, morality is, is detramental.

(You may notice a pattern in logic here;

We talk about:

(A) in the sense of social group's defining what's good for their group.

(B) in the sense of what may benfit one does not for another.

(C) in the sense of no morality exists.)

Walking along this path, taking in all elements (the four corners we pointed), the definition for morality is:

Judgement(D), or judgement-less orientated beneficent progress(A), including sacrificial beneficence(B), and zero point alignment(C).
— Qwex

I am quite sure what you said is totally awesome, and I do not understand it. For me, it is like poetry created of words I know, but with a meaning, I can not grasp.

Many quaternaries symbolize the world as four elements, or levels. They represent four levels or centers of gravity within us with which we identify and express ourselves in the world. The purification of each level represents four stages of transformation and transcendence taught in myth and religion.
— Michael S. Schneider

There is a graph on this page listing this fourness at different periods in history and through different belief systems. The number 4 is associated with mother/substance. Everything coming from the same mother.

I am struggling to understand this talk of fourness. It appears to hold a superior truth to the either/ or thinking, good/ evil thinking. — Athena

I did not say any of this. You may have had Qwex in mind when you complimented me. I shall disown the compliment, as it clearly does not apply to me.

↪god must be atheist Beautiful! :grin: And given what you said, what do you think education should be doing? — Athena

Thank you for your compliment, Athena. What did I say that relates to education? I can't be held responsible to guess other people's thoughts. Please refer me to WHAT I SAID or summarize it, because as god is my witness, whether it exists or not I can't guess what I said that you consider beautiful. Honest. Not being funny, not trying to be funny. Just can't see your thougths, read them, or feel them.

The drawback of the cosmic arrangement of the self's spot in it. Don't blame me, please. Just summarize what I said that you are referring to, and I'll give it a go how that relates to education. No promises, though.

I dont know what to tell you. — DingoJones

Easy. Quote me the paragraph. It is obviously beyond me to find it. You are capable of it. Why stall the discussion with such technicality? Go, quote. I'm ready.

NUMBER TWO.

Michael: the Gallup poll uses a statistical technology that employs an "expected" answer.

This, I believe, renders the statistics very approximate, not accurate.

The reason is that to make the test useful, the test giver has to inform the tested person what the baseline is to which the testee must compare himself when giving an answer.

Tester:
Do you feel your are A extremely happy, B very happy C somewhat happey, D not happy or E extremely unhappy.

How does the testee know at what level the gradients lie? The tester's question presupposes that the testee realizes what the tester means by these categories -- and impossible task for the testee.

-----------
My sample question was extremely simplistic. But it is likely applicable to all questions asked on happiness.

If you want me to reply to a specific paragraph, @DingoJones , then for my ease of reference, please quote it again. I can't go on a wild goose chase and randomly reply to your middle paragraphs not knowing which you actually mean. Just cut and paste or quote the paragraph, because on my wits alone, I can't possibly figure out which you mean. "Middle paragraph". Which post? I replied to a middle paragraph, and got strapped for getting the wrong one. Right me, by quoting it, please, @DingoJones.

Good point. I have to choose between "acceptable to society" and "useful for society". I choose "Whatever is useful," because it is acceptable. Whatever is neutral, is acceptable. Whatever is bad, is unaccepable. Thus, whatever is good, is moral; whatever is neutral, is amoral; whatever is bad (damaging), is immoral.

The above apply to practicalities in society. These practicalities are judged for moralilty or immorality by the society's ruling class, which could be a stratum of society, a person, or the entire society. The ruler (individual, class, or entire society) will force his or their or her will to make society accept what she he or they deem to be moral.

In my post that you quoted I offered a number of basis for morality, human suffering and based on doing onto others as you would have them do onto you. I offer another, based on what is good for society. Thats what you are going with, so my that point of mine stands. — DingoJones

Is this the paragraph you demand I respond to?

If it is, okay. In our morals, cannibalism is out. Eating people, dead or alive.

In another society, cannibalism is in. Eating people, dead or alive.

What is the moral principle, or moral system, that covers both? that's why I bought up that example, and I had hoped you had read it and arrived at the conclusion.

But no, I am not advocating ad hoc moral justification. You somehow miss my point, which I may have not communicated clearly. MORAL SYSTEMS, MORAL PRINCIPLES, SUCH AS "DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WANT THEM TO DO TO YOU" AND ALL OTHERS COME OUT OF PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS, AND THESE MORAL PRINCIPLES ARE AD ACTA JUSTIFICATIONS TO MAKE THE MORALS PERVASIVE IN A SOCIETY.
That is my view, not ad hoc moral decisions. I don't know how I could have miscommunicated that, but obviously I have.

I actually never attacked your point of view. If your point of view is that behaviour of individuals are guided in a society by moral principles. I also beleive you that moral principles can be summarized and systemized into moral systems.

But if your point of view is that moral principles are derived from moral systems, and the moral principles and the moral systems both preceed moral behaviour, and the principles were adopted before the behaviour was developed and adopted, then I challenge that view.

In my opinion a behaviour is judged moral if it is acceptable to the society, and immoral, if it's not acceptable. Acceptability depends on practical usefulness. From acceptability and inacceptability grow out the principles, and the systems.

Statistics actually don't lie... people lie. It's like guns don't kill... people kill with guns.

Both should be banned for use by the laymen, and only let be used by professionals.

So... I'm the gov stats person.
Mr. Michael: How happy did you feel on March 22, 2019, the whole day, and on April 14, the same year, and on September 44 of the same yearrrrr?

But if they only ask about today, or on the current day several times during the measurement period, they still need to ask the same people on every occasion, even ten years apart. The benchmark is going to be too sliding-sort up-and-down if you ask different people.

That can be countered by statistical spreading, but then you need a large sample.

And then in each of the 132 countries 2749 subjects (to make the sample return statisitically significant values) x number of interviews becomes so expensive, that the only people who have a smile will be the statiticians themselves... ("I can't believe how easy it is to make money by statistical methods... especially when you think everyone reads it as gospel, without knowing how valid the conclusions can be given the methods of data collection", thinks the data analyst.)

no, if someone is wrongfully convicted of a crime that's injustice. — BitconnectCarlos

You're right. But what if I lend you five bucks, you don't pay it back because you lose your job and your house burns down. I take you to court, and the judge comes down with the verdict, on humanitarian grounds, that you don't need to pay back the $5. Or he comes down with the verdict that you must pay it back.
It turns out that the $5 is the amount I need to get the money together to pay the "Final Notice" on my house taxes, before the city would reposses it.

Which is just? Your paying the $5, or not paying the $5?

Assume please that there are no court fees, no lawyers fees, and no transportation costs to go the court house. If you can't assume that, then please adjust the figures in question to cover those expenses as well, not just to round up my "final notice".

The world happiness report is COMPARATIVE. You can compare how happy Hungarians are at one point, compared to how happy Norwegians are at one point.

But you can't compare USA against USA at one point.

You're right in the fact, that given two different points, the same country could be measured against itself... how happy all individuals are against how happy they were at a different point.

But then again, there is the measuring problem... it is a subjective judgment, and it is decided by each participant themselves, because their feeling can only be measured by themselves. There are indicators, sure, but the indicators (visible to outside observers) may be misleading.

Such as "How many times this week you woke up with a smile, and how many times did you go to bed with a smile". This is objective, if given true answers, but the feeling is not measured.

I like that. Gonna borrow it, if you give permission...or steal it if you don't! (Smiles) — Frank Apisa

Hehe. (-:

This is flattery enough to make me go through the day with a smile.

Canada: +0.00000001 on the happiness scale for the day.

The suicide rate is much higher in the US than any other time and i wouldn't assume abortion doesn't count towards a high death rate. — christian2017

Aside from Michael's response, your being factually incorrect, there is no measure of the "well-being" of a society. You took suicide rates to be the measure. But it does not measure how happy the happy are, and how happy the baseline "normals". There may be times when many commit suicide, but many also are happier than whatever.

So it is a difficult proposition to say this society is shit, it's not shit now, now it's shit again... shit, shit, shit, not shit, etc etc because there is no such thing as a measure of the well-being of a society.

It'll work out. — Frank Apisa

What would be the alternative, I wonder... "My death did not work out the way I planned." (-:

I haven't found anything akin to an "one-size fits all" view
— IvoryBlackBishop

Because there isn't one. Some people prefer monogamy, some polyamory, some celibacy. There's no such thing as "right" or "wrong", just "right for me" and "wrong for you" – and even that changes as people grow and change. — Michael

Right on, Michael. We can't mix ethics with sexual preferences and lifestyles. There has been a lot of that, and it leads to strife, but not to "rehabilitation". Point in case: homosexuality. We now accept it as a viable lifestyle in sexual matters, but it took a long and ardorous battle in all spheres of human interest of the gay people to gain acceptance.

In my country, Canada,the prime minister in the nineteen-sixties declared, "the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" and abolished the part of criminal code dealing with I believe anal intercourse. (Butt-fucking, for those who don't speak Latin.)

The religious leaders have not got to the point yet, to declare, "God has no business in the bedrooms of the nation", and that is going to be a tough change, because gospel and other religious writings don't change with the times... only their interpretation, which can go wildly tangential.