The thought experiment is unhelpful, and that's the point I'm making. We don't know enough about time to answer the question. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's kind of the point. We're trying to come up with a reasonable explanation of time.

So the answer simply depends on what you mean by "eternity". If by "eternity", you mean time passing endlessly, then clearly time passes in the thought experiment. — Metaphysician Undercover

I just mean that they never move. There is no outside observer, there's no beginning, no end. Yes, if there was an observer there that would be a third existence monitoring change relative to themselves. But if there is no observer and no change in any existence, what's the difference between that and no time at all? This isn't a proof, its just a thought experiment to get us to think about the abstract nature of time without an observer. Is 'time' an actual thing?

Furthermore, the second part is completely illogical from accepted self-evident premises. If there is only two particles unmoving relative to each other, in the entire universe, it is impossible that they could suddenly move closer to each other, because this would require a cause, meaning something else in existence is necessary. — Metaphysician Undercover

Its just a thought experiment to get us to think. Its not a real life example. If you want to be realistic, its impossible to have the entire experiment as it is. There are obviously more than two particles in the universe. The idea of a thought experiment is to pair down variables to get to certain constants. The idea is simple. A universe where two thing exist that have no change, then suddenly there is change. Was there time before the change? Do we retroactively put time before the change? Can there be time if there is no change at all? These are the general questions we're thinking on.

So the proposed thought experiment is entirely useless for two distinct reasons. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, a thought experiment is about the key questions, not the reality of the experiment itself. If you get the key questions, that's all I'm asking you to answer in your own proposal for time.

Can you imagine two material objects not moving relative to each other, while some time passes? If so, then you ought to accept the proposition that movement of material objects relative to each other is not logically necessary for time to be passing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, that's what I'm pointing out. I can imagine time passing, but only because I'm observing it. If there is no observer and no change at all, is there time? Its not movement in particular, its change. Thinking is change. Observance is change. If there is no change, do we have time in reality, or is it a tool we invent from a world of change and retrofit it to a world without change?

As I explained, you are trying to base your conception of "time" in the observable effects of time passing (the movement of material objects), instead of looking directly at what time is, to produce a much more accurate understanding of it — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm trying to ask what time is beyond a tool. How do can you realistically measure time in a world without change? If you can't, does it exist? Is the nature of time something more fundamental than a tool of an observer and change? Is it its own existence?

As ↪jgill indicates, premises concerning what we know about the physical universe, in conjunction with good logical practise, indicates that time could pass without physical change. — Metaphysician Undercover

Rotation is physical change. I'm not trying to say "I have this." This is not me proving anything. This is me asking you a simple question. How does time exist in a hypothetical world without any change?

Since time in theory, is infinitely divisible (and we have found no real points of division in the continuity of time), then In theory we can still proceed to an even shorter period of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, as observers we can continue to cut down time as small as we want. But even 'plank' time is a measure of change right? We're inventing a half-plank length. And clearly though we can invent infinite time, infinite time doesn't happen in between plank tics.

The obvious problem with this proposal is that physicalist tendencies incline people to disallow the possibility of unobservable change, and the entire immaterial realm. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, I'm not trying to disallow anything though. I'm just trying to understand what the fundamental of time is without an observer. If its not change, what is it?

Appreciate the tag. I read it with interest, just nothing further to add to the matter. :)

Are they moving in reference to something else, like revolving? I have brought this up earlier. It has seemed odd that Minkowski spacetime might imply the passage of time with no physical movement. — jgill

No, its just two particles. Lets say the particles are a little misshapen so its apparent they aren't even rotating around each other either. If they were rotating, even if both were smooth and we couldn't tell, time would be happening without an observer. So does time happen if both stand still and no change occurs within or between them?

So perhaps this is best left alone if that’s the MO. — AmadeusD

The wisest words you've said here. Another conversation, another time.

I don't see the need for these two existents. The change relative to each other requires the passing of time, so it is evidence to an observer that time has passed, but time could also pass without any change of these two, relative to each other. — Metaphysician Undercover

Let me give you the thought experiment I'm thinking of so you can see what I mean. Lets say that only two particles exist in the entire universe. They stay exactly 1 meter away from each other for eternity. Is there time?

To me, if there is an observer, then there is a third existence that is changing. But we're talking about two particles that do not move relative to one another at all. Now, lets say that they move in one inch closer. Suddenly, we now have time, even without an observer. The thought experiment is that there has to be at least one change between two existences for time to exist. How would you approach it?

Anyone is free to claim whatever they want. Knowing is another matter to me.

Consider this; scientists have spent the last 50 years trying to prove Einsteins theories. They are slowly finding that most of them are true. Does this mean that the theories were not true until we proved them true? Did we know them to be false until we proved them to be true? — mentos987

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. On the flip side, I could believe that a one eyed being watches my every move because I dreamed it, and it were true. I wouldn't have knowledge of it though, it would simply be a belief.

At the very least, if you accepted the definitions that are actually used for those terms, the ambiguity would disappear and the words would already (and they do!) serve the purpose your trying to reinvent the wheel for. — AmadeusD

I could say exactly the same thing back. You're just asserting you are correct because you believe you are correct. When I disagreed with reasons, you just got upset. If enjoy conversations with people who have different ideas than you, act like it. You can disagree with respect and not get upset at the other poster. Well, unless they start insulting you first, then have at it.

Forgiven, just don't do it again.

Do you think matter that travels faster than the speed of light can exist? — Hallucinogen

I know there is no matter that can travel faster than light as of today. I believe we might find something in the future.

. If you claim to not know it, then argue that there are no green men on the moon, you believe it.
— Philosophim

Err nope. Arguing against the likelihood of something does not require knowledge that it “isn’t”. Your misinterpretations are starting to seem trollish — AmadeusD

And here I thought we had a nice parting of the ways. You're simply asserting, "I'm wrong" then calling me a troll. Control yourself and bow out of a conversation between myself and the other poster please.

When I hear people say they "know" something about religion I will automatically translate that to "believe", because religion is such an unknowable field. — mentos987

Agreed. I noted that earlier here.

Theists believe in God. Theists may claim they know God exists, but its never held up to any standard of knowledge, so becomes faith. — Philosophim

I do not think that atheists truly knows that god does not exist, since it is too hard to prove. — mentos987

You cannot prove a negative. Proving something requires what's called, "The burden of proof". Someone must present evidence of what they are claiming exists. To claim things don't exist requires no burden. Someone has the burden of proof to claim God exists, atheists do not have the burden of proof to claim something doesn't exist. Its not just God, its any topic.

Hey Bob, for some reason I completely missed that you had replied to this. Came in to review it and saw it luckily!

Why is it incoherent? I think we both agree it isn’t internally incoherent, but why is it externally incoherent? — Bob Ross

Its just not internally coherent. That's evidence that something isn't real.

If I don't know if "Contradictions should be encouraged" is real, I can follow the logic to realize it contradictions itself, so then in conclude contradictions should probably not be encouraged.

This is circular...but, then again, so is all fundamental reason and logic. — Bob Ross

Circular logic is self-confirming. This is self-contradicting.

I won't go into my reasons, they're just my reason why. Lets get back to the discussion!

P1: The way reality is does not entail how it ought to be.

P2: Moral facts are ways reality is such that it informs us how it ought to be. — Bob Ross

I pointed this out in our last discussion and I think it merits pointing out in detail again. Morality is a choice between two potential realities. Of course reality as it is right now does not tell us how it should be, because we're not evaluating a change in reality by either comparing to the past, or evaluating a change for the future. Only when we think, "Well, what if we change reality to include X, would that be better?" are we discussing morality. P1 only regards the present therefore does not regard morality.

1. Your proof no longer works for “existence should be”, because there is no contradiction. — Bob Ross

My proof no longer works ontologically. However, it does work by demonstrating how incoherent it would be if the objective morality were, "Everything should not be." Assuming rationality is our best representation of reality, we will go with the idea that incoherent ideas of morality are likely not to be true.

Or what makes it objectively true in your view? — Bob Ross

If there is an objective morality, this is the only way tor it to be rationally coherent.

Read the rest Bob! Keep an open mind and have fun. Take the idea that if it is true that "Existence should be" is the foundation for an objective morality, lets have fun thinking what that would entail based on the OP.

Abstaining from belief requires no knowledge. Sorry if that’s not how you feel. — AmadeusD

Yes, that's what an agnostic does. They don't have enough evidence to make a decision either way. But this seems to be upsetting you. Have the last word, I won't reply this time.

So if someone asked, "How do you know X", you would provide your proof as such. This does not negate my point.
— Philosophim

No, I would not claim I know there are no green men on the moon. But I would argue against it. — mentos987

Now you're just switching up what I stated. If you claim to know something, you would do what I noted to proove that you know it. If you claim to not know it, then argue that there are no green men on the moon, you believe it.

What? No it isn’t. That’s entirely non sequitur. It’s a lack of knowledge of the existence of God/s. It is neutral. It is not a decision. It is in fact NOT making a decision. — AmadeusD

Odd how riled up you are over this. I'm an atheist. I know God doesn't exist. Its not that hard. You seem to be confusing that knowledge means you have the burden of proof. You do not need a burden of proof to know things don't exist. Its up to those who want to prove that something exists to have the burden of proof. I think this is more of an issue of "What is knowledge" than anything else.

I know that there are tons of things that I have never heard of nor experienced any evidence for, yet I do not claim they do not exist. — mentos987

Sure, but that is because you trust certain sources in society and there is no valid reason for you not to. That's your evidence. So if someone asked, "How do you know X", you would provide your proof as such. This does not negate my point.

Regardless of compliance with Cicero's Criteria, and with Skeptical caution, the Enformationism thesis remains a philosophical conjecture, not a scientific fact. — Gnomon

Which is fine. Philosophy which refers to itself as something to look into and test is sound philosophy. We always need people poking and prodding at what we know to ensure that we really know it. You may be interested in a paper I wrote a while back about knowledge. There's a summary from a poster immediately after mine that nails it if you want to take a look. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1

Like many atheists I do not say there is no god since that is a positive claim which requires demonstration. — Tom Storm

You don't need to demonstrate that you know things because the evidence isn't adequate for it. I know that Zeus doesn't exist. Its not that I don't believe Zeus exists. It just seems like you're afraid of asserting something. Assert! No evidence = Know it doesn't exist

Seems like an unnecessary distortion of agnostic and atheism that causes confusion for someone who's not comfortable saying what they know.

Suffice to say you are wrong here and just repeating the incorrect descriptions. Abstaining from belief requires no knowledge. It is precisely a lack of knowledge that leads one to abstain. No evidence? Ignored. — AmadeusD

Yes, but you deciding to make a decision based on a lack of evidence is knowledge, not belief. Belief happens when you have incomplete knowledge, yet decide its the answer anyway. Its not that I don't believe there aren't little green men on the moon, I know there aren't. Not because I've been to the moon, but because no one has given me validated evidence that they exist on the moon.

Theists believe in God. Theists may claim they know God exists, but its never held up to any standard of knowledge, so becomes faith.

Atheists don't believe there isn't a God, they know there isn't a God because there's no evidence.

An agnostic does not know what to believe as they don't see enough evidence one way or the other to make an assertion.

I suppose after putting those definitions out, there is still the possibility that someone does not have enough evidence to know that a God doesn't exist, so some evidence that they one does exist, but believes they don't exist. Since there's no label for this individually, this must get swept up in the term atheist. Perhaps we need a new word.

I'm not a fan of any word that identifies a race in America as something special or different, considering our long and crappy history with racism. I don't even like it when the community uses it itself. I feel it only reinforces separateness and differences.

I was a high school math teacher for five years in inner city schools. My student breakdown was often 40% hispanic and 60% black. I am a white man. I never let my students use the N word in class, despite me knowing it was only thoughtless slang. I always told them to respect yourself as part of the human race, and that every time you use the word there's some racist somewhere who's nodding their ahead and saying, "You bet you are."

Its unthoughtful, and only adds to stereotypes of blacks as thoughtless, ignorant, or primitive. I am here to say as one who has lived as the only white man in all black apartments for several years, that this could not be further from the truth. It might seems like an insignificant division from someone raised in the black community, but any educated black person should never use the word, and ask their community to do better.

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Agnostic isn’t just a “weaker” version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know. — Tom Storm

Several problems with this.

1. To reject an assertion that there is a God, you either have to believe that there is no God, or know that there is no God.

"Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system" Ah, ok, so its knowledge then.
" To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods." Oh, so its not a belief then. So I guess they know there isn't a God. Seems unclear.

Agnosticism as long as I've heard it has mean that you don't know enough to determine one way or another where there is a God or not. An atheist asserts there is no God.

An atheist merely abstains from belief. They do not assert that God does NOT exist. — AmadeusD

This is either a belief or knowledge. To abstain from belief is because you rely on knowledge. To rely on belief is because you abstain from knowledge. Atheists know that God does not exist because there is no evidence for it. Just like I know magical unicorns don't exist, there's no evidence for it.

An agnostic is a person who remains unconvinced that there is enough evidence, or lack of evidence, to make an assertion one way or the other.

Who's calling themselves an agnostic atheist? That's just misunderstanding the definition of the terms.

Agnostic - Doesn't know if God exists or not
Atheist - Denies God's existence entirely

Not a problem! I hope you enjoy your time here.

Welcome to the forum Elysium House! Just a heads up, you ended up replying to a 3 year old post. Check at the bottom of the post in the lower left corner and it will tell you how old it is.

I think yours is an inadequate definition of time because "registered change" implies observation, judgement. — Metaphysician Undercover

Oh, I actually didn't mean to imply that. I'm not a person who believes all reality is dependent on our observation. I do believe there need to be at least two 'pieces' of existence for time to occur as it would be the change relative to each other. No observer required.

Yes, physicists are actually heavily invested in the use of "causation". Take a look at the concepts of "lightcone", "timelike & spacelike", "worldline", "propertime", for example. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, denial of causation is fundamentally silly. Its also completely indefensible if you remove the abstract. 'What caused your message to appear on the forum today?' for example, causes even the most passionate causality deniers great difficulty.

Until we come up with a clear description of what time is, this statement cannot be justified — Metaphysician Undercover

I believe I noted that time was registered change between entities. That's not very specific of course. Do you have a definition of time that you like to use?

When an atom decays radioactively from one element to another there is no prior event or cause for this to happen - it is completely random. — EricH

No, it is random by statistics. It is not actually violating the laws of physics. :) To have something without a prior explanation means there were no rules forbidding or necessitating its creation. Something without prior cause exists, simply because it does. There is no prior reason.

This is initially how I was conceptualizing the problem as well, but I think it runs into problems. "Time" doesn't exist outside of our 4D spacetime manifold. When our universe spontaneously exists, it is like a 4D object popping into existence, outside of any external time dimension. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Time doesn't exist if nothing exists, that's true. However, there is one thing we're likely making a mistake on. If its true that there is no reason why anything should exist, there's also no reason why only one thing should exist. We tend to look at 'the origin' as a one time event. Nothing before, then something after that had set laws. There's no reason that it had to be this way. The start of the universe may very well have been one small particle appearing, followed by others for countless eons.

What we usually refer to in the universe's origin is, "When the big bang happened" There's nothing in the math that leads to the big bang that necessitates there was nothing prior to the big bang. There's also nothing that states that things could have continued to appear after the big bang.

Other things that spontaneously exist wouldn't "start to exist" within the context of the time dimension of our own universe. You need an external frame here, and here it might be useful to conceptualize our universe as only two dimensional, with a third time dimension — Count Timothy von Icarus

Time is only a comparison of change between two existences. So a thing that forms on its own does not have time for itself prior to its being, but as soon as it enters into a universe with existence, time happens. I wouldn't place too much emphasis on time personally. Its just change between existences and not an actual existent force or entity.

Smarter people than me, who actually specialize in this sort of thing still think Johnathan Edwards has a point here — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think its pretty clear once we realize that thing can form without a prior explanation, that a God is not necessary. While a God is possible, so is anything else we can imagine. Since anything could have been possible, we have to look at the evidence of our universe as it is and conclusively determine "X is the origin" with evidence. Claims to God as the universal origin are not evidential. Not saying someone couldn't take this approach, but as it stands now, its not a very good argument for the universe's origins.

But I don't think this is necessarily relevant since it would seem to relate to the size/mass-energy, what have you, of objects beginning to exist within an already existing space-time. — Count Timothy von Icarus

We can even remove the virtual particle notion. If it is the case that the origin of the universe has no prior explanation for its existence, there are no rules. If something formed within nothing then, why can something not form within nothing now? There's no reason it couldn't. There's no reason preventing tons of incredibly tiny 'things' popping into and out of existence. Right now, there could be things popping into existence somewhere in this vast universe.

The point I was trying to make is that the math makes anything large, long lived, or complex orders of magnitude less likely than something that is smaller, not eternal, and simple. While the idea of something appearing within nothing without prior explanation means there are no rules, it doesn't mean we can't think of logical consequences. Namely if anything is possible, all things are equally possible. Why? If something were more possible than another thing, there must be an external reason. But there is no external reason. It simply is.

With this in mind, we can also realize that it is equally possible that a big bang formed, and for the last trillion years, nothing else formed from nothing. Perhaps something will happen again in another 5 years. Or five minutes. When you're dealing with something which has no rules, it cannot be predicted.

Of course, it's a non sequitur to go from "there is a first cause" to "this first cause is an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, intelligent designer who gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life". — Michael

Absolutely. Not that its not possible, but the chance would be so low that its statistically insignificant. Also, its just as equally statistically insignificant that an 'All-bad, dumb designer who snatched his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should perish, and have eternal death." formed instead. The reality is that we cannot look to the idea that everything is possible and say that any one thing, "Must have formed". The only way to tell what must have formed is to look at the results. Evidence is the only thing that can tell us how the universe formed.

Any supposed "first cause" might simply be an initial singularity of infinite temperature and density that then expanded. — Michael

It very well could be! The idea that I'm putting forward should never stop us from exploring the universe's origins, even if there may come a time when there really is nothing prior.

The answer is the same: "it just is; there is no prior explanation for why causation is an infinite regress". — Michael

That is the entire point of the OP. As long as we agree on that, we're all good.

What I take issue with is your claim that this then entails that there is a first cause. That is clearly a contradiction, as it cannot be both that causation is an infinite regress and that there is a first cause. — Michael

I'll tell you a secret. I wrote this over two years with an intended purpose: to get the atheists and theists in here to think. If I remember at the time, there were a rash of 'proof of God' posts. I found that some atheists would go in very disrespectfully and mock the theists. Then I found some atheists would go in gently and respectfully, but be mocked by some theists. The point was, people stopped thinking. This was to make a place where theists and atheists could be disarmed for a second. Instead of being concerned about proving or not proving God, I wanted them to really think about the origins of the universe for a second to see if they could come to a logical conclusion.

I use the phrase "first cause", but its just a phrase to get people into the discussion. The phrase isn't all that important honestly, its the underlying logic and lesson that I wanted you to learn. Call it whatever you want, I don't care. The phrase 'first cause' sure got some passions up though didn't it? It got clicks and people discussing. It was something I learned back on the internet to make sure my conversations didn't die without being seen.

Would I have written it the same way today? Maybe, maybe not. I can't argue with the results, and I wonder how many people would have never stepped into the conversation had I not phrased it that way.

You appear to conflate "brute fact" and "first cause". As I mentioned in my first comment, that explanations end isn't that causation starts. — Michael

A better word that's probably more palatable than the emotionally laden and anxiety inducing, 'first cause', is 'origin'. The origin of the universe is unexplained. It had no rules for why it should or should not have form. "It simply is". But, something to consider. If there is no prior reason for the way the universe is now, there were no rules as to what could or could have formed. You can't say there were rules, as that would mean there was some prior limitation. Which means we've proven that "something can form within nothing'.

What does this mean? Without knowing the origins of the universe, anything could have happened. I actually tried to rope in the odds of a God one time. Its possible, but pretty low. Long story short, there's no cardinality so its 1 infinity out of an infinity of infinities. Its no more likely to happen than any other crazy thing you can think of. What's fascinating to me about this is that there is no reason why 'anything could happen' could not happen again. There's a little bit of math that we might be able to show cardinality for that would demonstrate it magnitudes more likely that incredibly small and simple things would randomly appear instead of larger and more complex things. But I believe that we can logically embrace a cosmology where things can be without a prior reason for their existence, and start thinking about the consequences of this. Its not even simply a possibility, its a logical necessity.

Take a one inch square. Divide each side into n equal parts. Then there are n^2 sub squares. Assume the probability of a point being in the big square is one, and each sub square probability then is n^-2. — jgill

Thanks. So then if every chance had equal chance of being, that would be 1, then n^2, then I assume n^4 if we chopped those new squares up again? The point that I was trying to make is that if all had an equal chance of being selected individually, a smaller section of square is more likely to be selected then the larger scaled squares.

"One chance out of the infinite" means what? — jgill

Sorry, its late here. I meant to say 'the limit as this division approaches infinity', if there is one. Meaning the smaller the size of the particle, the more chances per square inch it appears over something the size of an inch itself (assuming all have the same chance of appearing)

Sorry. Language is a lot looser in philosophy (or this forum) than where I worked. — jgill

Not a worry. All good!

Now, to be completely honest, I am rethinking this normative theory; because I don’t think it works anymore. I have this darn habit of writing something up, and quickly defeating my own position—back to the drawing board! ): — Bob Ross

No shame at all. The person who isn't making mistakes in trying to forge forward to new discoveries isn't doing anything meaningful. The fact you can admit flaws in you own arguments puts you years ahead of many people who have attempted serious philosophy.

The reason I don’t think it works is because I think the contradiction doesn’t actually exist if one disambiguates the language: kind of like how B and C were really easy to conflate in your theory, being an being with the ability to set out absolute ends is different than being an absolute end. — Bob Ross

Hey, I'm glad you learned something from my mistake then! I've made a lot of them over the years, let me know if you need any more. :D

They're called virtual particles
— Philosophim

A mathematical convenience that cannot be observed through instruments. — jgill

Good to know, I appreciate the info! I had looked into them at a cursory level, but apparently I need to read more.

Wrong. And I think you mean an inch cube in 3-space? Or an inch square in my favorite, the complex plane. — jgill

Just using a basic 2d example. Also, despite virtual particles not being what I thought they were, this is a thought experiment for the OP.

But divide the square in half. Anything could appear in that square at any moment, and not in the other half. Right? Right.
— Philosophim

Wrong. Where do you come up with these flights of fancy? — jgill

Did you read the OP?

Please don't. And don't ask a mathematician to do so. And something would appear very small if it is very small. — jgill

You misread what my intent was. It was to compare the probability of something occurring in a one inch square versus several magnitudes smaller as we divide up the square, assuming equal probability of something appearing in each measured location.

I love it when philosophers dabble in physics and math. Especially quantum physics. :cool: — jgill

Why be snide? Just educate. If the person you're educating is being rude, then be snide.

Fantastic thread.

If this is the case, and things can start to exist, for no prior reason (they are uncaused), then why don't we see more things starting to exist at different times? — Count Timothy von Icarus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgKJV_p48AQ

They're called virtual particles.

I've written a bit on this in the past. We have to logically think about what would result if things could appear without a prior cause.

1. There is no reason for their being.
2. There is no reason they should continue to exist.
3. There is no reason they should follow any laws except after they exist.

Meaning that a particle could appear, but then disappear soon after. No reason why it couldn't. When you talk about something that has no reason for its existence, you also can't say why it could NOT exist either.

So then why don't we see things like chairs randomly pop into existence and then disappear. That's due to probability. If anything could exist without reason, there are no limits. Meaning we have to consider all possibilities.

First, lets start with scale. Let think of an inch by inch square of space. Anything could appear in that square of space at any moment right? Right. But divide the square in half. Anything could appear in that square at any moment, and not in the other half. Right? Right. Continue to do this ad infinitum or until we get to what is the smallest particle we can see.

What does this mean? For every one square inch we see that has one chance out of the infinite, we have a square that subdivides down into magnitudes smaller, meaning in the comparative likelihood of one square inch, its much more likely that something appear very small. I don't want to math this out, maybe someone else could.

Second, lifespan.

A particle could exist in between the smallest possible measurement of existence that we can imagine to the largest. Meaning, like the square space, we have a situation in which there is a near infinite amount of time to exist that is both before and after. Seeing a particle form that would also form with the ability to be indestructible would also be exceedingly rare considering all other possibilities.

Third, complexity

Complexity is many smaller things integrated together. Something formed without prior rules would need to interact with something else without prior rules (Or perhaps other existences that have been here a while) and form something meaningful. What's the chance of that? Probably pretty low.

So over time its not surprising that we would see extremely small 'things' forming and unforming as they enter into existence, interact, and wink out. What would be exceedingly rare, though possible, is something of a large magnitude with massive complexity forming. Its possible again, just exceedingly rare.

Its an interesting notion though. If anything is possible, over infinite time, will all things happen? Anyway, fun thoughts to think on.

I have no problem with the metaphysics description and the use of words that do not lean on the physical. My concern is that it should not be forgotten that it is all physical at its core.
— Philosophim
That's where you and I agree & disagree. — Gnomon

Which is fine by the way! I respect your views.

*2. Experimental test for the mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
A recent conjecture, called the mass-energy-information equivalence principle, proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy and exists as a separate state of matter.
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/2022/9/091111/2849001/A-proposed-experimental-test-for-the-mass-energy — Gnomon

Now this? This I love. This is an attempt to put a theory to the test. I would love to see it happen.

I agree. I've noted several times that it is currently impossible to objectively evaluate someone else's subjective experience. But do note that this problem does not go away even if we remove science.
— Philosophim

Objective or empirical evaluation of subjective experience may be an oxymoron. But Subjective theoretical evaluation of subjective Ideas is what Philosophy*2 is all about. No need to "remove" the reasoning of Science, just the requirement for empirical evidence. — Gnomon

True that we would remove empirical evidence, but then what objective evidence do we have? As you noted, it may very well be an oxymoron. And I'm inclined to agree. Subjective experience can only be discussed subjectively, not objectively. The problem that I see is if there is no objectivity, then there is no scientific standard. Subjective analysis falls much more easily to bias, difficulty in replicating results, and consensus. Its not that objective analysis cannot have these problems as well, but the frequency is far less and these problems can easily be identified, nullifying the research without much debate.

I feel subjective experiences are honestly best left to psychology. There they at least have some methodologies to account for this, though it still has its problems. I am aware I speak from ignorance however, my knowledge of psychology is limited.

Again, great post Gnomon!

What I'm noting is that if it is, according to itself, it shouldn't be.

What’s really wrong with this, in principle, though? It doesn’t even seem incoherent to me. — Bob Ross

If you mean its not incoherent that it leads to this result, I agree. I mean its incoherent, and therefore likely not going to be the objective morality if it exists. I'm switching between "Assume it exists" to then "Show it exists". I can invent a lot of ideas that would be incoherent or lead to contradictions, but that usually lends weight to them not being real.

If I don't know if "Contradictions should be encouraged" is real, I can follow the logic to realize it contradictions itself, so then in conclude contradictions should probably not be encouraged. A morality that exists that states it shouldn't exist is contradictory by this measure, so likely does not exist. Is this a certainty? Of course. But since we don't know either way yet, we go by what seems most rational.

Literally anyone will agree with your definition here of morality, but I want to dive deeper: what are the properties themselves? Not what is morality, but what are the nature of moral properties? — Bob Ross

Oh, yes. That was the purpose of the original question. To find what rationally 'should' be at a foundational level. The conclusion is, "Existence should be." You may want to read the OP from that point to see what I say from there. That's where I go over what we can conclude from this. I most certainly do not think "I have it", but this is a fun part where we get to brain storm and see where this goes.

So how many convergent subjective analysis constitute an objective one then, in your terms? Is that how it works? — Bob Ross

Not quite. The point is to remember that your opinions and beliefs do not make reality. A subjective viewpoint is typically associated with a belief or outlook that makes claims about reality that are not sufficiently tested.

I can get on board with that, but why do you think there are moral judgments that exhibit this kind of objectivity (viz., that there are moral conclusions which are despite our desires or viewpoints)? — Bob Ross

A very good question. That's a combination of many factors over the years. I've done some basic study into morality and come to a couple of conclusions.

1. There are universal moral decisions across cultures. Why? What's the underling fundamental that causes that?

2. We are moral to animals. Some animals even show signs of morality. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6404642/#:~:text=The%20empirical%20evidence%20gathered%20until,or%20even%20a%20direct%20loss.
This is in contrast to the ideas of morality being subjective, selfish, or even cultural.

3. There are various other contradictions and debated issues with many versions of subjective morality. That tells me that over the eons we've spent studying it, we haven't come up with an acceptable solution.

4. There is great value to having an objective morality. Such an understanding can bridge cultures, religions, and further the understanding and progress of humanity.

5. Humans are made out of matter. I do not see us as separate from the universe, but very much a part of it. I find it odd that suddenly morality pops up and its only a human condition. I believe there is something underlying this beyond just evolution that allows morality to express itself through us.

None of these reasons mean that there is an objective morality, but they are reasons I think its worthwhile to search for one.

Which leads me to: what states-of-affairs in reality are morally relevant, then? What out there are we able to access that is of moral signification? — Bob Ross

That which we can have control over. There are a couple of things we can get into later such as cost and capability. But first we have to build up what morality actually is when it gets to the human level.

This entails that when you affirm that morality is objective that there are moral judgments which are made true in virtue of reality, and are not made true in virtue of our pyschology—so what is it, then? Platonic forms, naturalistic empirical inquiries, etc.? — Bob Ross

So far? "Existence should be" As I noted earlier, its time to read the rest of the OP.

I don’t think there is anything in reality that tells us what we ought to do, so it does not matter how much a rational agent reflects accurately about reality: the normative or morally relevant information comes from within, not without. — Bob Ross

There is nothing preventing you from believing this opinion as we discuss. My point is to see if I can demonstrate that morality could be a logical consequence of rationality and existence. Its about considering and thinking on new ideas. Hopefully you'll find it fun. :)

But what I've said here does negate the possition you have take over your last few threads, especially the causal necessity stuff. I'm not surprised that you feel the need to resort to this. — Banno

I didn't mean it as an insult, only a description. Jester's are entertaining after all.

What I did was to suggest that we cold simplify the issue of what "physicalism" is by sticking to physics. — Banno

Banno embodies a jester. Once you realize that his posts are easily understood.

A mind is an emergent process of a brain or a soul (take our pic) which is capable of having desires, cognizing, and having a conscious experience or an awareness of its environment; whereas, an end-in-itself is just a shorthand for something capable of deploying absolute ends. — Bob Ross

Yes, but can you give an example of that 'something' that isn't a mind?

Ok, which premise then? — Bob Ross

P4: To treat a mind as solely a means towards an end is to contradict their nature — Bob Ross

Contradicting a person's nature is not the law of non-contradiction. For example, someone's nature could be to commit suicide, but I step in and stop them. No logical contradiction happened like 'True is false'. Its just going against someone's desires that we call, "Nature". I'm not seeing a reason why I shouldn't go against someone else's desires based on the points you've covered here. As I noted earlier, I think you'll need Kant's categorical imperative to have some type of justification that tells me I can't use someone for my own ends.

So you're saying that there is both an infinite regress of causes and that there is a first cause. Do you not see the contradiction? — Michael

No. But maybe I'm wrong. Can you answer this question: "What caused there to be infinite regressive causality?" Remember the answer that I gave to finite causality. "It just is, there is no prior explanation for its being." Is your answer different?

For example, I don’t see how morality, if it were ‘objective’, would be ‘at odds with itself’ or that it ‘doesn’t fit’, in principle, if A were true. — Bob Ross

Let me separate out two points so you can see where I'm coming from.

If the objective morality that exists is "Existence should not be," it doesn't matter, that's what it is. I'm not debating that. Just like if the real morality is "Contradictions should be encouraged in life". If that's what it is, that's what it is.

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. Just like if it was objectively true that "Contradictions should be encouraged in life" that we should contradict that.

That's the odd thing about speculation on what's objective without proof. Technically, you can invent anything as objective, and its plausible. Of course, its equally as plausible that objective morality is, "Existence should be," When we're in a state in which we have two options without evidence, we take the stance that seems more reasonable and likely to be based on the evidence we do have, as well as whether such an option would directly or indirectly lead to a contradiction of some sort. Just like "Contradictions should be encouraged," leads to a line off logic that means you should contradict it, so to does the idea of a morality that exists that says it shouldn't exist.

1. What is the nature of moral properties? — Bob Ross

For now? Morality is the analysis of what should or should not happen. Keeping to what should or should not be is moral, while going against the precepts is immoral.

2. What is the nature of objectivity? I am assuming you mean “that which can be rationally agreed upon”. — Bob Ross

The nature of objectivity is a rational deduction that persists despite differences in subjective experience. The nature of subjectivity is a rational or irrational conclusion that relies on one specific subjective experience. These have never been precise nor perfectly divided definitions. They are more what I'll call "guidance" definitions.

The guidance of objectivity is the understanding that there are certain conclusions which are apart from our desires or personal viewpoints. Meaning an objective conclusion has the potential to violate everything we wish and stand for. It is the understanding that there are forces beyond ourselves that will contradict ourselves.

The guidance of subjectivity is to understand that you have a personal viewpoint of reality that may not be the same as others. The default child-like state is to believe that one's perspective is unalienably correct, and reflective of reality. Objectivity is meant to raise a person's thinking beyond this, while subjectivity is its contrast and reminder to be conscious of our own limitiations.

I am assuming you mean “that which can be rationally agreed upon”. — Bob Ross

This requires me to answer, "What is rational?" What is rational is to connect information together in such a way that is reflective of reality. This is usually known by avoiding being contradicted by reality. Logic and tools of reasoning are time tested methods that help one avoid being contradicted by reality.
The ultimate measuring stick that trumps all is if reality contradicts you. If so, all tools which have lead to this contradiction should be re-examined to find its flaws.

3. What is the nature of an “objective moral judgment” or a “moral fact” to you? — Bob Ross

It is a judgement that accurately reflects reality. If A should exist over B in reality, then this is a fact. Deciding to shape reality so that A happens is a correct moral decision. Concluding that A should exist over B in reality through rationality, is a correct moral judgement.

I will say, to be totally honest, I think your position is a form of moral subjectivism (; You are a comrade in disguise.... — Bob Ross

Ha ha! The way you define subjectivism, I am. The way I define subjectivism? Not so much. At the end of the day, I honestly don't care about what the specific words are to different people. I care about the guidance. If a moral objectivism exists, then we can be contradicted in reality by our moral choices and finding out what the objective morality is will allow us to construct objective moral judgements.

You're saying that the set of all causes is itself a cause. This is a category error. The set itself doesn't cause anything and so isn't a cause. The term "cause" refers to the members of the set, not the set itself. — Michael

No, I'm saying when you examine the entire set of regressive causality and ask, "What caused everything to be infinitely regressive?" there is no prior cause. It exactly the same as taking a set of finite regressive causality and asking, "What caused everything to be finitely regressive?"

The answer is the same. There is no prior reason for its being, therefore, it just is. This is the first cause for all chains of causality.

You're saying that id either a) or b) is true then c) is true. This makes no sense. If either a) or b) is true then c) is false. — Michael

Take the set of all regressive causality, A.
What prior existence caused A to be?
There is nothing, A is A because it exists. Thus it exists without a prior explanation for its being, and is thus a first cause.

c. There comes a time within a causal chain when there is only Y, and nothing prior to Y. This Y is Alpha. (first cause)

You then ask:

"Why would it be that there exists an infinite prior or infinitely looped causality in existence?"

I am suggesting that perhaps there is no answer. — Michael

That is exactly what I'm agreeing with. And if there is no prior cause for its existence, point c notes that this is the first cause. It exists without prior explanation for its being.

Again, you erroneously imply that I deny the role of Brain in Mind functions. — Gnomon

Sorry, that was not intended to target you in general, more the general idea some have in this thread.

What we call "mind" is the immaterial function of a physical brain. — Gnomon

I have no problem with the metaphysics description and the use of words that do not lean on the physical. My concern is that it should not be forgotten that it is all physical at its core.

That's the problem with Materialism, it looks for empirical evidence of something that is immaterial. The only evidence of Mental Functions is philosophical inference. — Gnomon

I agree. I've noted several times that it is currently impossible to objectively evaluate someone else's subjective experience. But do note that this problem does not go away even if we remove science. Any attempt, be that metaphysical, idealist, etc., falls prey to the same criticism. Such language is fine to describe our emotions and feelings, but it will never be objective.

You may not think Darwin was asserting something unbelievable, but most of his contemporaries did, because they were convinced of a different belief system. — Gnomon

My point is not whether a person agrees with beliefs or not. My point is whether they are open to looking at the facts, even those that challenge their beliefs, and determine whether their beliefs hold true in the face of the evidence. Trust me, I challenge belief systems all the time, including my own. I'm sure some members despise me for it. :) Often times I don't communicate in the 'meta' of philosophy, and that really bothers some people. I have read and formally studied many different philosophies, and I have found that to think freely, you need to not be unduly constrained by communities or habits.

A person being constrained by their beliefs is not the same as a person proposing new, undeniable facts that invalidate that belief. If you can show me undeniable facts that demonstrate something which exists apart form matter and energy, I'm very open to it.

And this is not a problem. This is the limit of what we can measure today, and we take what is most reasonable from that analysis.
— Philosophim
I agree. Yet Reasoning is not empirical, but philosophical. A Paradigm Shift is a change of perspective on the evidence. :cool: — Gnomon

I agree that it is both. Empirical evidence without logic or reason leads to nothing new. We must have a strong sense of skepticism in any claim, and require logic and evidence. New perspectives should always be brought forward, but they must be tested against the hard rock of existence.

PS___ I appreciate your respectful skepticism. It forces me to tighten-up my own reasoning. And to find new ways to describe an emerging new paradigm of Philosophy and Science. — Gnomon

I really appreciate your viewpoints as well Gnomon! I'm glad you're not taking my points the wrong way. I greatly enjoy chatting with thinkers like yourself, and I think you're setting up your language and approach to science and consciousness that is palatable to someone like myself.

Thus, beginnings, or "first causes", are demonstrably not "logically necessary" in ontology (topology or cosmology) though, of course, they are possible. — 180 Proof

Let me word it another way. We don't know if the universe has infinite causality or not, that's not what I'm claiming. Lets look at it in sets.

A. The set of all causes from point A until a finite beginning.
B. The set of all causes from Point A infinitely regressive.
C. The set of all causes from Point A until it loops to Point A again.

The question is not, "Which set is correct?" The question is, "Do we find a finite limit to prior causality?"

And we do. What caused the set? Put in set A, B, C, or any other crazy idea someone comes up with. What caused that set to be instead of some other set? If we look for a prior explanation, by our sets, there is none. There is no prior reason why the universe would be finitely or infinitely regressive.

A first cause is simply defined as "That which exists without any prior causality for its existence." All sets come to this point. Meaning that all sets do not have a prior cause for their existence. Meaning they simply exist, there is no prior reason why the set is besides the fact that it is. This is ontologically necessary.

To avoid any implications you believe I'm going with this, this is all I'm claiming here. There is no requirement that anything be designed by a consciousness or with intent. I'm just noting that it is logically concluded that no matter what, the ultimate causality of the universe will always result in the answer that there is no prior explanation for its existence.

Correct. Which is why when we reach a point in any chain of causality where there is no prior causality for its existence, 'it simply is', that we've reached the first cause from which the rest of the chain or set follows
— Philosophim

I'm not sure you're even reading what I'm writing. — Michael

My apologies if I'm not understanding your point. What did I miss?