You just seem to be noting I can do all of them, but I want to know, in your formula, are you determine the right thing to be based off of a span of 1 year, 1 minute, most forseeable future, etc.? — Bob Ross

Ok, this would be human morality. We'll get there soon.

I would say, in this case, you have just setup a moral framework where the most entities existing is best and your conclusions aren’t that particularly off; it is the idea that this is objective that is wrong, but I have been granting it for the sake of seeing where this goes. — Bob Ross

But why do you see it as wrong? The way to take it is to assume that no life exists, but morality still would. What would morality look like without life? This question must be answered, because life is technically still just atoms and molecules cobbled together a particular way. We are not separate from the rest of the universe, we are made up of it.

I would say, in this case, you have just setup a moral framework where the most entities existing is best and your conclusions aren’t that particularly off — Bob Ross

If you are ok with what has been noted here so far, then I will continue. We may need to return, but we'll see.

To understand life, we first need to understand chemical reactions. Chemical reactions are typically a flurry of interactions over a short period of time that eventually end once the material for the chemical reaction is used up. There is a high concentration of existence here, however it comes to an end.

Life is interesting in the fact that it is a series of chemical interactions that continually seek to extend these chemical reactions as long as possible. Even to the point of creating a new life, or set of chemical reactions, that will continue on once the original can no longer renew itself. Comparing a single cell to a rock, we can see just in the internals alone how much existence there is. We have cytoplasm, organelles, and a cell wall. Not to mention we have mobility, as well as reproduction. Life is a high concentration of existence and considered more moral in comparison to an equivalent number of atoms in a rock.

Something I've been noting is you seem to be using morality as a means of comparative elimination. In all cases, it is more moral to have both the rock and the life instead of either the life or the rock. Now in a case in which the rock would be destroyed or the one cell would live, in this comparison alone the life would be considered more moral and should continue to exist over the rock. But getting into eliminative morality should only be a consideration when there is an absolute choice between the two and no means of compromise.

Of course, what's more existent than single cell life? Multicellular. This is the same exact pattern as atoms and molecules. Does this mean all single cell life should become multicellular? No. Just like the possibility of atoms forming into molecules doesn't mean all atoms should form into molecules.

With this, we see the pattern of moral existence continues. What is most moral is an environment in which life and non-life can co-exist. Why life is particularly special is that it needs to sustain its own chemical reactions. This at time may put it into conflict with other lives. Ideally, two cells should be able to coexist. But there may be reasons why they cannot. Both cells may need the parts of the other cell to survive, and if neither of them eat the other, both will die. But in all cases, it should only be that one cell destroy the other only if it is necessarily more existence for it to do so. It is not about what the cell feels or wants (if it could feel such things) it is again a calculated outcome of existence.

Can we have an evil cell then? Yes. Lets say we have a cell that kills every other cell it comes across. It does not eat the other cell or use it in anyway. The other cells are no threat to it. It just kills the other cell because it can. At this point, such a cell should either be contained from other cells, or be eliminated from existence. Its expressed existence is one that lowers the potential and actual existence around itself overall compared to a good cell.

Multicellular life follows the same pattern once again. Instead of cells co-existing, its sheep and wolves. Ideally, both would be able to co-exist without killing one another. But, a wolf must eat meat to live. Further, simple multicellular life has no check on itself for its multiplication beyond available resources. If a population multiplies too much and burns through all of its resources, it can no longer renew itself and dies out entirely. Wolves serve as a check to ensure too many sheep do not form, eat all the grass and plants in an area, and result in a mass extinction event.

Ok, take a look at what I've noted for life and see if you have any issues. Once you're good here, we'll move onto humans.

Do multiple causation chains spring into being with first causes or first cause? — jgill

Possibly. Once something begins, it immediately has relations with anything around it. Something small or large could appear and its gravity would suddenly now be an influence on other things, as well as itself may be influenced by other things. It could be as simple as an uncaused helium atom entering the world and then existing within it. Once an uncaused thing is within the rest of the interplay of existence, it is no more special than anything else.

There is no limitation as to what a first cause could be
— Philosophim

It is limited to things uncaused, surely. — AmadeusD

Ha ha! Of course. :)

@Gnomon Well said.

If I am understanding correctly, then it sounds like you are just calculating total net 'identities' in reality over time — Bob Ross

Ah good. I had hesitated to use that word as I wasn't sure it fit. I've been trying to pare this down as basic as possible. I view an identity as a section of existence which has a unique capability to interact with another existence. Even two similar identities are never identical as they exist in different locations.

where preferably it is calculable closest to the last point in time. — Bob Ross

Its an option based on what we're trying to accomplish. Time is a component of calculation. We could use seconds, minutes, hours, or years. While the smallest time tick would be the most accurate, it may be impractical to do so. For one, in the time it would take to calculate the total existence in the next tick, several ticks would have passed and we'll never catch up.

This doesn't seem moral to me and there are plenty of examples where this is just morally counter-intuitive and immoral. — Bob Ross

Based on, 'Existence should be," do you have something in our approach so far that doesn't seem moral. Moral intuitions should be thrown away for now. We have a start, and from that start we've set the next step. Is this logical? Are there problems with it now? All life is gone in the universe, and this is all that remains. Are we wrong in our approach? We'll move on after as it all builds up from here.

In other words your are asking if there is (or was) an original plan for the creation of the Universe. — Alkis Piskas

No, I'm actually not. I don't think it requires an intelligence for there to be a morality, only an intelligence to comprehend a morality. This is not a morality that is human centric, but universal.

Still, you don't define what you consider as "moral". This makes it difficult to engage in a quest on the subject of existence. For one thing, it raises the question, "Moral in what sense and for whom"? — Alkis Piskas

Morality is simply the question of, "What should be?" That's it. It doesn't require you or I. It doesn't require a God. Its the very simple question of whether there should, or should not be anything first, then building up from there.

They mean the same. 'Should there be?' is just another way of asking 'is there a reason for?' — Wayfarer

No, and here's why. I can explain the reason why we have pollution. Should there be pollution? I can explain the reason why a criminal stole from the bank. Should the criminal have stolen from the bank?

Here we are, trying to re-invent philosophy on the basis of hair-splitting distinctions. — Wayfarer

We're really not. What about the rest of the summary Wayfarer?

Where should we search for that? Morality is a broad term: it can mean conformity to a set of rules of right conduct. — Alkis Piskas

I did not summarize everything in the OP, though perhaps I should have. As defined in the OP, morality is "what should be".

Now, about your logical scheme ... I have some difficulty following it. What does "everything should not exist" --or its opposite for that matter, "everything should exist"-- mean? How and where can this be applied to? And what does this have to do with morality? (Morality comes in only in step (4).) — Alkis Piskas

The point is that all moral questions will eventually require this question, "Should there be existence?". "Why should we help people?" must answer the question, "Why should there be people?" which eventually must answer the question, "Why should there be anything at all?"

Isn't that another way of asking 'is there a reason for existence?' — Wayfarer

No, its really just asking the question, "Should there be existence?" Check my reply above to Alkis, you're both on a similar line of questioning.

Nice topic! Are you able to follow what's going on here? I just posted a little summary for Wayfarer above. I would love to hear your opinions if you're interested.

Do you have any famous philosophers in mind here, or just the hoi polloi? — Joshs

Just the general industry. Famous philosophers are typically famous for a good reason.

I disagree. There is no word in any language that expresses "epiphenomenalism". From this fact, it is evident that there is a need for new words to be coined. Those new words quickly become jargon. — Lionino

I'm more going by George Orwell's six point of writing.

Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
Never use a long word where a short one will do.
If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
Never use the passive where you can use the active.
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

If epiphenomenalism is the the most clear and simple way of communicating an idea, use it. I'm not stating use of vocabulary should be restricted. It should be used as needed for clarity, not to pad a sentence with jargon when it could be stated more simply.

In our case, its quarks. But maybe in the future it will be something smaller. So the examples here are 'atomic' comparisons, but are simply an abstract for, 'the smallest existence'
— Philosophim

Good ol' atomism, eh? The problem is, quarks, whatever they are, are not ‘identifiable material’ or ‘particles’ as such. From an article on the nature of particles: — Wayfarer

Hello Wayfarer! I appreciate your contribution to the thread, but this is a fairly special one. I'm building up a case as I go to propose a 'logical supposition' for an objective morality. As you noted in the quote, I am not endorsing atomism, I am using it as a convenient abstraction to communicate the underlying ideas of the OP.

While we could have an interesting discussion about mathematical particles vs waves in another thread, its not relevant here and I don't wish to get side tracked. If you're interested in thinking about the logical plausibility of an objective morality, let me paste a summary of the initial part leading up to this point. This should be a very fun measure of philosophy where we're really thinking about something new and different. I would love to have your thoughts. :)

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
2. IF A is true, it must not lead to a conclusion which contradicts itself A = A && A != !A
3. Assume 'nothing should exist' is true A = T
4. Because it is moral that 'nothing should exist' the objective claim 'nothing should exist' should also not exist.
5. 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".

With the idea that "Existence should be" would logically be the foundation for any objective morality, I'm building up a way to use math to calculate out comparative existence scenarios and build up to a morality that people can use that is based on objectivity, not culture.

1. Existence is the smallest bit of identifiable material possible.

I don’t think ‘existence’ is quite the word you are looking for (unless I am just misunderstanding), as the term refers to anything that ‘is’. #1 here refurbishes the term to only refer to the most fundamental and primitive entities. — Bob Ross

My mistake, 'material existence' works better.

With respect to PEB, what are you grounding/anchoring the span of potential expressions for comparison between ‘candidates’? (E.g., are you calculating it in terms of total net relative to the ultimate outcome? Are you calculating it in terms of the immediately foreseeable outcome? Are you anchoring it in the present or future?) — Bob Ross

Alright, as long as you understand the start, we can move into time. Over unlimited time, if nothing eliminates material or potential existence, then all things are possible. But we don't have unlimited time, nor know if it exists. We have limited time. What is moral is based upon a time frame. If over 100 seconds there is a steady total of '10 existence' this is a better outcome then a total of 12 existence over 50 seconds, then 0 existence over 50 more seconds.

But, this does man that an existence of 1000 over 1 second would be equivalent. Of course the problem is the zero existence afterward. Over the course of a limit to infinity, having even 1 existence over all of that time would be superior to any limited set of existence that destroys itself completely.

Thus another general rule.

1. Potential existence can be lower temporarily if it will/may pay off by creating more potential existence later.

Of course, now lets put the idea out there that we could manage it somehow. We can't plan for infinite time, just limited time. How do we manage our atoms?

This could be very complex, or simple. Lets start simple. We have 4 atoms floating around in infinite space. While potentially they could interact with one another to create a molecule, in actuality, the probability of doing so is extremely low. More likely than not, the four atoms will scatter to infinite distances of one another to never again interact. The 'potential' is there for them to interact, but the forces practically cut that potential off entirely. I'm not sure what to call this.

But what we could do is put a limiter. For example, put a box around our atoms. They can drift away, but not so far away that they never have the actual possibility of contacting one another again. Funny enough as a side, gravity in theory attracts all things towards each other. Meaning that if there were no other outside forces, there would be a practical limit to how far away atoms could get from one another before gravity reversed their momentum to return.

To get complicated we would need some math that I'm not willing to go through right now. :) Lots of probabilities and calculations for the optimal limitation distance etc. There are two more points we want to glean out of this now.

1. The math can get, 'big'. In an ideal scenario we could calculate it all out. And if we want to be 100% correct, we should. But of course calculating future morality is the realm of probability. Nothing is certain.

2. Because the specifics of the math can get rather large, we need a more efficient way to handle scenarios. This is the rule of eliminating equivalences in both sides. So if we are comparing two universes in a box with three atoms, if the box size is the same in both universes, we do not have to take the existence into consideration in comparing both. This is exemplified in the submarine example.

3. Significant figures should also be taken into account. Considering we are including a lot of unknowns in the situation, there comes a point where further calculation is unnecessary for general conversation and decisions. If for example we get a ratio of 1.9997621 to 1.9998621 this can largely be rounded to 2. This will be important as we scale beyond atoms. Eventually there will come a point on our scale where the 'quark' value of existence is so insignificant for measurement and practical purposes that we disregard it as a consideration.

4. These moral patterns do not change as existence becomes more complex. At its base, the calculations and rules are the same. How we assess something as it moves up to a new identity like 'life' is important, but still follows the same fundamental rules.

I also noticed that you said “in most cases” and not “in every case”: so, is PEB just a general principle as opposed to an absolute one? — Bob Ross

As you can see from the above, this is why this is a general principle. Time and meaningful significant digits can bend this a bit.

2. Where possible, the elimination of one existence's actual and potential existence should be avoided.

I get what you are saying; but this doesn’t seem moral to me at all. This will absolutely lead to biting a ton of bullets in ethics; and same with PEB (and EB). — Bob Ross

Perhaps, but remember we cannot look to where we're going when starting at a base. We have to look at where the base leads us. As I noted earlier, we can dip into lower potential and actual expressions of existence if the payoff is more existence down the road.

That's enough for now. Let me know what you think Bob! Once we feel comfortable with what's happening at the atomic level, I'll move back to life.

Since the immanent experience of mind is both what is being explicated and what is doing the explicating this is a mischaracterization. Perhaps it is in some sense a story, that does not make it un-factual, only historical. Scientific facts likewise exist within an historical context, which can be extensively revised as scientific understanding evolves. — Pantagruel

We know from studies that self-reporting is riddled with bias, inaccuracies, and conflicting takes. A story is not a fact, regardless of its history. Scientific facts are not historical stories, they are long and bloody battles where they are the only victors to survive. The comparison between personal subjective musings and science is like comparing an infant to Einstein.

Many of the philosophers of yesteryear would agree with me that philosophy should ultimately result in factual progress, which requires a strong set of grounded facts to start from.

Sorry for the delay Bob. I had to take a break from the forum for a few days to handle other things, but I'm back.

As I am reading through your response, I think it is worth us slowing down a bit and discussing the actual formulas you are deriving and using to make these calculations. Initially, I was just trying to point out the severe counter-intuitiveness to the ethical theory, which I still think is applicable, but I think you are more interested in the formulas themselves. — Bob Ross

This exactly.

For example, on the one hand you seem to deploy a ‘atom-for-atom’ formula (such that an entity with more atoms is better than one with less); while, on the other, you seem to deploy a ‘potential-for-potential’ formula (such that an entity with more potential to act is better than one with less); and, yet another, is that you seem to compare potential for act-potentials as well (e.g., baby is better than a lion when considered as a fully developed adult). — Bob Ross

Yes, you didn't have a grasp on these formulas which I feel we must debate over first, so there is no point in moving on until you do. Lets keep to the atom comparison for now. So no more lions or babies for now!

First, let me introduce a few rules I've been coming up with to simplify understanding.

1. Existence is the smallest bit of identifiable material possible.

In our case, its quarks. But maybe in the future it will be something smaller. So the examples here are 'atomic' comparisons, but are simply an abstract for, 'the smallest existence'

2. Existence is also created by the relation between another existence.

This is about force exchange, or distance. Think gravity as a simple force exchange as all existences exert gravity on one another. If force exchange makes it too complicated, just make it distance.

3. When this relation is affected by another expression of existence. Expressions are changes in the underlying function of the existence when isolated or comes into basic contact with another. Think of a pool ball bouncing against another. Both the pool bars retain their individual identity, but react differently than in isolation.

4. This can create an entirely new identity in which two existences create something more than a trivial interaction. Think about two atoms forming a molecules. The combination of these expressed existences becomes something entirely new adds new expressed existence that could not happen for each 'atom' in isolation.

5. Potential existence is the total possible amount of expressed existence that can happen from one atom, or a new 'identity' like a molecule.

Consequences of these rules:

1. In most cases, having more potential expressions of existence allows a greater existence to ultimately be expressed.

2. Where possible, the elimination of one existence's actual and potential existence should be avoided.

3. A variety of expressed existences are preferable to uniform. For example, there is more potential existence in having a hydrogen and helium atom alone, while also having a separate pair of hydrogen and helium atoms as a molecule instead of two molecules.

Lets start with just this. Go through the rules and consequences and pick at it thinking in atoms alone at this point. No babies! :D I have next steps planned, but we need to go slow.

To begin, the claim that everything that comes into existence has a cause is equivalent to the claim that it is impossible for anything to come into existence without a cause. If the second of these claims cannot be sustained, the former cannot either. — expos4ever

Then you agree with the OP. A first cause is an 'uncaused cause'. Or something unexplained that is justified by its own existence, that then can enter into causality chains with others.

The philosophy of mind isn't dead, it just needs to be married to neuroscience and today's facts. People thinking they can solve philosophy of mind problems from a purely philosophical perspective are deluding themselves. All philosophy needs to be based on facts. Otherwise its just a story.

Well, this is certainly a deep issue. Good luck. Nice chatting with you. :smile: — jgill

You as well jgill! I greatly enjoyed your contributions to the thread.

↪jgill One can maintain some respect for this thread if one sees it as ↪Philosophim attempting to phrase Fundamentality, in causal terms. — Banno

Fantastic link Banno, I was not aware this was a study of philosophy. After reading it, yes, this is basically what I'm doing.

To avoid this overlap, we should not use 'should' and 'preferable' together to avoid an emotional connotation.

This doesn’t really address the issue though, unless you are conceding that ‘existence is not preferable to non-existence’ or that preference is irrelevant. — Bob Ross

My point is about context. "I would prefer to do X, but I should do this instead." Preference is often subjective.

Recall that chaos means anything can happen. Which could mean that in 50 years the range between nothing happening vs everything happening exists.

Not quite what I mean. I am saying that in a world with maximal existent entities, chaos between them is always better than order. Chaos, itself, does not entail that nothing might happen: it is the complete disorder and confusion of what exists as it relates to other entities that exists. — Bob Ross

What you mean is a specified kind of order then. A dice roll is not chaos, no matter how many dice you add into the mixture. We simply don't know the outcome. Can you specify the type of existence you think would be more moral? Use the calculations I've been doing so far. Start simple.

By analogy, I am saying a room full of furniture, people, electrons, etc. in a state of continual collisions and disorder is going to be better than where everything is arranged according to specific guidelines (i.e., order) because there is more ‘expressive existences’ in the chaotic room vs. the orderly room. You seem to be noting, with this response, that the existence of the entities in the room may randomly disappear or they may stop interacting with each other. — Bob Ross

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this is far too vague. Can you use the system I've put forward so far? Use one of my examples as a spring board.

Sure, but you are basically just saying “more complexity is better”; but, then, a highly complex computer or AI would be higher prioritized and better than a newborn baby. — Bob Ross

What do you mean by 'prioritized'? Remember, we've already found a mathematical rule that introducing different types of existences increases overall existence. There is nothing that prevent an AI and a baby from coexisting. In fact, its more existence for them to coexist, and no matter how moral AI becomes, it is more moral to keep the unique existence of babies within that same universe.

And you're still too far along. You're not understanding the basics yet, just trying to see where this is going. You're talking calculus before you've mastered multiplciation. :) Use atoms. Hydrogen and helium. This helps keep it at the level that you want where we can look at the math and make sure the fundamentals are understood.

Likewise, an adult Lion, by your own standards, has more “interactions and potential existence” than a newborn human baby: are we supposed to say it is better to have adult Lions than human babies? — Bob Ross

No, because a human being, IE, higher intelligence, is a much greater potential existence than a lion. Higher intelligence is much more capable than simple ambulation and survival. It can plan how to shape the universe and make it so in ways far beyond an animal. It can recognize its own morality. The amount of existence per atom heavily outweighs a lion. That being said, both or valuable. The universe is in general richer for having them both than not having one or the other. And if humans were eliminated, it would still be better for there to exist lions.

Likewise, I am not sure that a newborn human baby is more complex then unalive ecosystems. — Bob Ross

One individual baby is not, but you're making two mistakes.

1. You're assuming its either/or. Its better for there to be both.
2. You're not comparing the amount of existence generated per 'atom'. You're comparing the generation of expressed existence of 3 atoms vs 300 million atoms.

Again Bob, I have to see that you understand the part we're at first before we move to humanity, intelligence, etc. Try to take your examples and put them into the atom examples I've used so far. If you can't yet, then that means its probably past where we're at right now. We'll get there, just one step at a time. :)

↪Philosophim What is the distinction between determinism and causality? — EricH

Determinism is the idea that everything was completely set by rules from the beginning. Tempral causality simply means that a prior event is the reason why a current event is happening. First causes are not determined because there is no reason for their being besides the fact they exist. This means there is no prior law that necessitated their existence.

What I have produced in mathematical terms is an actual chain - I can make it more specific with definitions of functions, etc. if you desire. Your actual chain is a complete abstraction. — jgill

They are both abstractions. While the math proof is nice, I'm still failing to see how it address the point. I still don't see anything in this other than talking about origins. For example, I could start my origin at 0, or start it at one when counting. But an origin is no the same as a full chain of causality that does not require an observer.

The question is really about what caused the set of causality to be. If the universe has a finite chain of causality, what caused that to be? If the universe has an infinitely regressive chain of causality, what caused that to be? There is no prior cause in either case. It would be that set without prior explanation; it simply would be.

What I have shown is that first cause is more complicated than what the ancients understood. In my example, n going to infinity, using the same z at each value of n produces an infinite causal chain having that z as a sort of ultimate first cause. I would think this example would stir original philosophical thought rather than a regurgitation of traditional ideas. :chin: — jgill

I'm not sure I see that. Could you clarify more? How is this any different from creating an origin in math? I appreciate the contribution, it just seems I'm not getting how it applies yet.

You're judging my post based on the title? Isn't that the same as reading the title of a news article, then commenting on it at the bottom of the forum? Come on, you're better than that.
— Philosophim
Actually, ↪180 Proof should be "better than that", since he has a deep understanding of post-enlightenment philosophy. But he seems to dismiss any philosophy before the 17th century as religious (woo-woo) metaphysics. His self-professed worldview is Physicalism/Immanentism*1 {he'll correct me, if I'm wrong}. Which means that the notion of a First Cause, prior to the Big Bang scenario, is literally non-sense . . . from his truncated perspective. — Gnomon

I appreciate the defense, but he posted that years ago. Its the only time I've ever had an issue with him and its long forgiven. 180 Proof and I are A-ok now. :)

Think of a large disc in the plane, full of points,z, and each individual function in the chain taking any such point and producing another point in that disc. Assume that each of these functions draw any two points in the disc slightly closer to one another. Then, when you start the chain you can use any point in the disc as a "first cause". — jgill

If I understand you correctly, you're just talking about a mathematical origin. That's not the same as a first cause as defined in the OP. Lets envision an a thought experiment of an actual chain as a visual.

First, lets stretch a chain from left to right, each link is a prior cause to the next link. The first link in the left is the first cause. It has no prior link of causation.

Now lets take a chain that's looped together to represent infinite causation. What caused there to be a looped chain? There is no prior outside link that formed that chain.

In each case, the reason why there is a finite chain is that there simply is. The reason there is an infinite chain is that there simply is. There is no prior reason why there should be a finite regression of causality, or an infinite regression of causality. Does your formula apply to this? Currently I'm not seeing it.

Therefore, your work details these four general precepts with a schematic overview and a collection of algorithms for rigorous calculations. Through use of your guide, members of the public can do more precise assessments of truth content at each level. — ucarr

It makes me incredibly happy to hear you understood the paper and what the goal was.

On a speculative basis, I’m wondering if your scheme can be used with logical truth tables towards rigorous assessments at each of the four levels. — ucarr

Possibly. If there is a need for it, I will.

Note - This note is, admittedly, a somewhat fanciful suggestion: in order to keep your quartet alliterative, consider replacing your last level, “irrational induction,” with “pretension.” — ucarr

Honestly I've never been satisfied with the last phrase. Originally I was going to call it faith, but I thought that word had too much baggage attached to it. I love the alliterative suggestion, but pretention has a lot of negative connotation to it. I'll think about it. :)

↪Philosophim Right, but my point is, if it seems like a supernatural mind contributed to an apparent miracle (viz. understanding, intent), then we might as well say that a supernatural mind contributed to a veritable miracle. — NotAristotle

Certainly. But it should be 'seems because evidence points to this' vs 'seems because it requires far less work'.

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.