What is more important is coming up with definitions that serve purposes of being logical, clear, accurate, and useful to the most people.
— Philosophim

Which is the only aim I took, and exactly the one all my comments have pushed toward. Again, can you point out where you think that might not have been the case? — AmadeusD

I noted earlier that your point about the SRY gamet was fine. Our only disagreement at this point is that sex must necessarily be defined as being only two. There are good reasons to do so, but I can also see other reasons not to. That's all.

This is not 'my view'. Sex as defined is restricted to two. It is a binary. It is a term which was designed to signify the reproductive binary of male/female in dimorphic animals. If you want to redefine, I have given an option for that to happen. As it is, your position here is nonsensical as it uses the word 'sexes' (which is restricted to two, by definition) and then calls into question 'my opinion'. — AmadeusD

Here's an article in scientific America talking about the idea of making more than two sexes.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

As well, I gave you a point about chromosonal variance and the example of 'tall bush' vs 'short tree'. Go re-read the initial point as I think you misunderstood my greater point about when we use modifiers to words vs invent entirely new words.

Words are agreed upon by communities, not dictated from above.
— Philosophim

I really, seriously, cannot grasp what you think is happening here. — AmadeusD

If you can't understand after re-reading my point, then perhaps we just leave it then. Seems pointless to continue if after several replies you can't understand my point and you believe I've misunderstood yours. No harm or foul either, it may just not be our day to convey our proper intentions. :)

The reality is they liked dressing up in women's clothing, painting their nails, and putting their hair in a pony tail. They could do all this and be happy.
— Philosophim

Does it not strike you as pathologising to label enjoying certain fashion as some kind of mental condition? — AmadeusD

Where did I state this was a mental condition? Do women have a mental condition for wanting to wear dresses and paint their nails? No. Same with transgendered individuals. Look, my friend wrote lesbian fan fiction for years (Nothing I'm interested in). I've never once thought it was a mental condition.

The underlying immutableness of sex as chromosomes remains.
— Philosophim

While i disagree, pretty vehemently, with this claim, the rest of your post was perfect to explain what I saw as contradiction. Thank you very much :) — AmadeusD

I'm not seeing the contradiction, but you do you at this point. We seem to be talking at cross odds with each other today. That sometimes happens and I don't think there's any fixing it at this point.

Thanks, I will digest this and get back to you. Sorry, I admit, I didn't read all of the comments on here as there are a lot. Thanks for reposting your earlier comments, I appreciate your patience. — Beverley

Not a worry Beverly! Take your time and feel free to disagree after reading it.

More trans people I've known these days don't undertaken the operation or use hormones. Certainly not for the first years. — Tom Storm

That's a personal anecdote, not a fact. According to Trangend Health

"Introduction: The number of individuals seeking sex hormone therapy for gender dysphoria has been increasing. The prevalence gender dysphoria has recently been estimated as high as 390 to 460 per 100,000 with a consistently greater prevalence of trans women (MTF) than trans men (FTM). We report here the changing demographics encountered in our experience over the past 2 decades."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7906237/#:~:text=Introduction%3A%20The%20number%20of%20individuals,than%20trans%20men%20(FTM).

People within the community should want clearly defined words and concepts that they can make good decisions with.
— Philosophim

Like every other community there is no one codified approach to all this. I'm not sure it would be realistic to expect this. People have different views and self-images in every community. — Tom Storm

Doesn't that sound like opinions? Everyone can have their own opinion, but if we are going to use language that asks us to accept facts, we need words and definitions that are more than personal feelings. Especially when we have decisions such as medical transition, sports participation, and a whole host of laws being made.

I'm going to ask you this then: "Why is it more advantageous to have language that isn't clear and ambiguous?" How does this benefit any community?

Meaning, both the definition of sex cannot change, and one's sex cannot change.
— Philosophim
Hey mate, I'm not editing this back into my more substantive reply, incase you're reading it right now - or, it's not particualrly relevant because I've missed something further on in the thread But:

The above quote seems to indicate that you're not open to the position you're currently taking. Has the position on the above changed, in a way that would explain the current acceptance of redefinition? — AmadeusD

Let me repost the context first.

Sex is immutable. It is a biological determinant of DNA. Hormone changes do not change your sex, only allow you to emulate a hormone aspect of the other sex. Meaning, both the definition of sex cannot change, and one's sex cannot change.

Here I am not referring to a definition that is mutable in regards to culture. My point here is that the definition of sex is linked to a biological determinant. Thus, if to my earlier point, we linked XX as female and XY as male, that's not changing. The discussion about changing the definition of sex is within the introduction of information that does not fit our original division of the sexes. For example, XXY. My point is that if we are linking sex to chromosomes, it is just as reasonable to say, "XXY is a male variant" versus "XXY is a new sex." The underlying immutableness of sex as chromosomes remains.

As such, I believe that labeling a transexual person as 'transgendered' creates confusion and harm.
— Philosophim

I'm am just intrigued to understand why and how you think this creates harm. — Beverley

Certainly. I posted this earlier and I'll do so again.

I have seen a host of problems by blending transgender and transsexual together. First, the concept of blending genetics and culture together is the root of stereotypes such as classism, racism, and sexism. The idea that I take on the culture of a woman, therefore am a woman, implies that there is some objective truth in genetics with culture. This argument can be applied to race as well, but we've learned that's a bad idea.

Second, there is much confusion among people who have gender dysphoria. Is it gender dysphoria, or sex dysphoria? They are very different. Gender, as in the cultural dysphoria, does not require one to get on drugs or get surgery to act culturally as the other gender. Understanding that gender is just cultural expectations by society means one can make different choices in adapting to and fulfilling their emotional desires.

Sex dysphoria on the other hand is often solved by physical disguises, drugs, or surgeries. Such things are last resort to solve issues, and yet I've come across people who think gender dysphoria should be solved by such changes, then regret the pain and loss they went through.

The point is that clear language allows a clear identity of issues. With clear identities, we can come up with clear solutions. The current lumping of the term which describes two separate issues is causing a confusion and mix within the community itself, and as such is causing great harm where decisions are incorrectly made for one's condition.

Finally, there is confusion outside of the community as well. Many people are willing to accept decision in regards to gender for gender issues, and sex regarding sex issues. But when people believe the subject is gender, and sex issues creep in, there can be backlash or disagreement. Thus, it serves everyone involved for the clearest language possible that describes the issue most accurately. — Philosophim

To add to this from some personal experience, I have a friend who is transgender. They mistakenly thought that this meant they needed to transition using hormones and surgery. The reality is they liked dressing up in women's clothing, painting their nails, and putting their hair in a pony tail. They could do all this and be happy. This is someone who is transgendered who initially thought that the only way to fulfill their transgender desires was body alteration. Body alteration through drugs or surgery comes with many risks for people and should be a last resort.

In short, confusion in the transgender and transex community is just as bad as without. People within the community should want clearly defined words and concepts that they can make good decisions with.

Relax, we're trying to do the same thing.
— Philosophim

AS noted, you seem absolutely resistant to a fool-proof grammatical way of solving your problem. What would you have assumed, If i had rejected the same? — AmadeusD

I think you're getting a little too worked up and reading things that aren't there. I get you're being attacked by others, but not me. I am not resistant to something fool proof and already told you it could work on your follow up. Relax. :)

I can see the viability in declaring more than two, and I don't see any problem in noting this.
— Philosophim

As 'sex' is defined, there is no viable option other than male or female. Again, if another culture usurps this word into a system that has a different word for sex(as we understand it) fine. But that's a ridiculous reason to accept that usurping. — AmadeusD

Of course its viable to create more than one sex. We can change definitions. There is no existent thing out there that decrees 'sex must be defined this way'. What is more important is coming up with definitions that serve purposes of being logical, clear, accurate, and useful to the most people. One of the core functions of philosophy is to question and ensure that vocabulary and concept are sometimes redefined or clarified to serve these purposes.

You have to understand that your view that there should only be two sexes is an option. One that you can reason with others to keep. But if you're dogmatic about it? People can viably reject you. Words are agreed upon by communities, not dictated from above.

Some of the peer-reviewed literature: — Mark S

I'm not asking for a course study. That's easy enough to find. I'm asking what literature you're using, and what ideas you're basing this off of. When you reference something by science, put a quote so we can see where you're coming from and what research you're basing it off of.

Regarding your proposed counter-examples, I thought I had explained them, including how dying for your country is part of a reciprocity strategy. The short answer is the motivation for loyalty only works to your gene's advantage on average. — Mark S

Ok, but that's not cooperation. I can do many things for my gene's advantage that do not involve cooperation. How is me, under threat of jail or duress, getting drafted in a war to die for my country cooperation?

“Also fully in the domain of science is understanding how the biology underlying empathy and loyalty can exist and motivate true altruism, sometimes even unto the death of the giver.
That explanation, first proposed by Darwin, is that empathy and loyalty motivate cooperation that can increase what is called inclusive fitness of groups who experience empathy and loyalty even at the cost of the life of the individual.” — Mark S

Once again, this does not answer my example of coopting others for power. Many ideas of morality and laws in culture are not about cooperation or willingness, but forced obeyance under threat of punishment or death. Don't misunderstand, someone can find cooperative benefit in going to war. But you need to consider the people who don't and are forced to. I'm not seeing this consideration so far.

If someone in trouble tells me they don't need help, but I secretly slip them 20$ that can't be traced back to me, that's has nothing to do with morality? — Mark S

Our moral emotion of empathy exists because empathy for other people motivates initiating the powerful cooperation strategy of indirect reciprocity. — Mark S

Indirect reciprocity? Look, I'm not thinking they're going to pay it forward. For all I know the guy's a psychopath. I also lost 20$. I do it because I think if I have spare resources, it should go towards helping another life live well. This is not cooperation. This is sacrifice. Altruism. You don't get to twist everything into, "But you see, if we twist the word around its really indirect cooperation." Be better than that.

Our ancestors who did not experience empathy tended to die out. — Mark S

Do you have evidence of this? Empathy can also be double edged. If you're empathic to the wrong person, they can take advantage of you, kill you when you're vulnerable and/or take all of your resources.

Empathy for a bug is a misfire on its evolutionary function — Mark S

Again, do you have proof of this? Or is this an opinion so we can hand wave anything away that doesn't fit into 'cooperation'?

Could stomping on the bug still be immoral in a culture? Sure. People who kill bugs can be thought of as deserving punishment (being descriptively immoral in that society). In that society, this moral norm would be a marker strategy for a person with empathy and therefore a good person to cooperate with. — Mark S

You're really going to try to claim that if I stomp on a bug, it could be considered immoral because it means I'm not good to cooperate with? How does that have anything to do with whether I can work with other people towards a common goal? The problem is you're trying too hard to fit everything into cooperation. You know what's more likely? Cooperation is not the full end all explanation for morality.

Understanding our moral sense and cultural moral are parts of cooperation strategies explains much about human morality that would otherwise remain puzzling. — Mark S

No question. But you're claiming cooperation is the entirety of morality which is inadequate as I've covered.

“Loyalty – one of six commonly recognized emotions triggered by our moral sense that motivate behaviors that are parts of known cooperation strategies – Loyalty motivates initiating indirect reciprocity (unselfishly helping our group) and exists because our ancestors who experienced this emotion tended to survive due the benefits of cooperation it provided. — Mark S

So once again, if I'm loyal to a dictator that slaughters millions of Jews, this is somehow moral?

Punishment – by our conscience, a god, other individuals, society, or the law – is a necessary part of reciprocity strategies. — Mark S

Threat of punishment for not following a culture or society is not cooperation. Its also not 'reciprocity'. Its servileness. Slavery. Personal sacrifice for obedience to others. Its not, "You see, by serving the master plantation owner, the slave is indirectly benefitting themselves by the fact that they aren't beaten and killed for daring to be an individual human being." If you go this route, you're lost. I suppose this would mean if one lone slave stood up to their master they would be violating cooperation and thus be immoral.

This needs work. A lot of work Mark S.

Once again I think you're misreading the intent and going down a path no one else is taking. What about yourself? Do you think we know things, or is our knowledge all faith?

Socrates famously proclaimed that he knew that he knew nothing. — Echogem222

I don't think this was meant to be taken literally, but word play to convey that the essence of philosophy and seeking knowledge is to come to every situation as if you know nothing. Thus you leave your preconceptions behind, you listen to others in discussions, and you seek to understand the topic before telling others how it should be.

As for, "How do we know that we know?" there's an entire field of philosophy called epistemology. I've written a bit on the subject as well here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1 Its a bit lengthy, but there's a summary from the next poster besides me that captures it very well. Feel free to read and ask questions if you're curious.

How on Earth did you derive that from anything I have said? — unenlightened

By you claiming that sex is a lifestyle choice. I clearly wrote this. Sex is what you are. Lifestyle choices are how you decide to live. Tying lifestyle with sex or race is the definition of sexism and racism.

And I still don't have much of an answer. What is the use of this wonderful clarity you propose we adopt? — unenlightened

You seem to be ignoring the clear reasons I've posted. Clarity of language for clarity of thought. Go back up and read my examples again as I've already replied to you.

See my problem is I never took a genetic test, so I don't know what my genes are. So I have to rely on presumptions based on old-fashioned things like having a penis, and being sent to a boys school, and so on. — unenlightened

This is a fair argument. If you wish to base sex off of genetalia, I see little objection to that. Since genetics determine genetalia, this seems consistent with my point.

I think identity is always a complex interaction of adopted and assigned, and you are very much in the business of assigning a sexual identity. — unenlightened

Sex is not an identity. Sex is an embodiment.

Mrs un, by the way, is at least just as white as she is black, if we are talking genetics, but that is seldom 'counted' by people that count these things for other folk. — unenlightened

Also another good point. But to my point, you don't think she has to act a certain way culturally because of her genetics right? If she never painted her nails or wore a dress she would still be a woman right?

But your definition does not help, for example, the difficulties faced by sports governance, and I do not see that it helps people with "gender dysphoria" (another imposed identity). — unenlightened

I am not addressing sports, but genetic markers would ensure proper biological separation. And I did address gender dysphoria. Go re-read the first reply I gave to you, I detailed it all out there.

And my point is, "How do we determine what is male?"
— Philosophim

My point is that we do not have to determine that in the same way or even necessarily at all, in relation to every social situation — unenlightened

Sure, not every social situation is determined by sex. But those that are, are. And we need a nice and clear delineation of what counts as sex for that. This is different from dividing social situations by gender. Gender expects you to act and look a certain way, so sex itself is not important in these situations.

Yep. Its called de la Chapelle syndrome. — AmadeusD

The alternative, which is covers every human ever, and categorises into precisely two categories without (known) exception, and with full utility in the sense that once categorised, it gets set aside unless medically relevant, is to use the activation of the SRY gene as a marker for sex, given that this is determinant of which cascade of sexual development is engaged. — AmadeusD

Right, so the SRY gene is found on the Y chromosome. In the case of De La Chapelle syndrome it only happens because that piece gets broken off the Y and merges with an X. Really, I have no objection to the SRY gene to match all special cases, as long as its genetic.

What does matter is blending gender and sex together, as there are clear logical distinctions between sex and gender that lead to poor logical thinking when blended. The two are distinct enough to warrant their own words.
— Philosophim

Absolutely. Am trying to establish how this delineation works - you seem resistant. — AmadeusD

Relax, we're trying to do the same thing. An alternative to your viewpoint does not mean I'm not trying to establish a solid delineation either. I'm just making sure its clear, unambiguous, and not based on phenotype.

So if a culture wants to call Klinefelter syndrome a new sex, makes sense.
— Philosophim

No it doesn't. Because that term belongs to a culture in which is it bounded to Males experiencing a certain genetic expression. That is what it symbolises in the culture in which it arose.

Another culture coming along and misappropriating the word isn't helpful, or sensible. At the very least, it violates, entirely hte premise of your attempt to solve the problem that exact thing causes. I'm unsure how this is not obvious. — AmadeusD

The point is to demonstrate the logic around how language is formed and framed. Of course if another culture defined the term differently, we would have to come to an agreement on how it was defined. My point is there is nothing innate in only saying, "There are two sexes." Depending on one's approach, and if their definitions are clear and consistent, I can see the viability in declaring more than two, and I don't see any problem in noting this.

You are repeating your definition and declaring it to be the truth. — unenlightened

That's an odd accusation. I'm pointing out why I'm defining things, feel free to disagree and explain why.

Genes are immutable, snd you want to define sex in terms of genes. What will you do if/when progress in gene therapy allows "sex - change" to be real in your own definition? — unenlightened

Nothing at that point. At that point sex would be mutable with surgery. But the definition of sex would not change. I see no problem with this at all.

Sex would cease to be immutable and become a lifestyle choice - again. — unenlightened

Sex has never been a lifestyle choice, just as race is not a lifestyle choice. You can choose to live the culture that society has associated with race or sex. Thus I can dress in hoodies, listen to rap, etc. if I want to live the lifestyle of inner city 'blacks', but it does not make me black. Same as a black person listening to Adelle and driving a Prius doesn't make them 'white', just living the lifestyle of an urban 'white' culture.

I want you to understand what you are implying very clearly. You are saying that living as a culture makes you a different type of body. This also implies that being a certain body, means you MUST have a particular type of culture. That is the definition of racism and sexism. Be very careful with that.

I guess that is some kind of joke that went over my head. — unenlightened

You may have missed it, but I had posted a half post by accident. I had just fixed it when I saw you asked your question.

Why do you want to redefine sex in terms of genetics? — unenlightened

Because words should be as accurate as possible within reasonable means. Sex is immutable.
Genetics are very simple and immutable. Gender is mutable. This serves a very clear distinction between the two and avoids issues of ambiguity. As a response question, "Why should we not define sex by genetics?" Thanks.

I have fixed the above post. If it did not answer your question, feel free to ask it again.

Since then, there has been somewhat of a retreat; first long haired men then gays, then men with boobs, then men with micro penis, and now we have your final last stand that hormones and organs and orientation and gender can be ignored in favour of the sacred genome. That's ok, but why? What can we all derive as a practical consequence from this ruling? — unenlightened

A very good question! Because clear and unambiguous language allows for clear and unabiguous thought. Have you heard of George Orwells definition of "newsspeak"?

In the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), by George Orwell, Newspeak is the fictional language of Oceania, a totalitarian superstate. To meet the ideological requirements of Ingsoc (English Socialism) in Oceania, the Party created Newspeak, which is a controlled language of simplified grammar and limited vocabulary designed to limit a person's ability for critical thinking. The Newspeak language thus limits the person's ability to articulate and communicate abstract concepts, such as personal identity, self-expression, and free will, which are thoughtcrimes, acts of personal independence that contradict the ideological orthodoxy of Ingsoc collectivism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

I have seen a host of problems by blending transgender and transsexual together. First, the concept of blending genetics and culture together is the root of stereotypes such as classism, racism, and sexism. The idea that I take on the culture of a woman, therefore am a woman, implies that there is some objective truth in genetics with culture. This argument can be applied to race as well, but we've learned that's a bad idea.

Second, there is much confusion among people who have gender dysphoria. Is it gender dysphoria, or sex dysphoria? They are very different. Gender, as in the cultural dysphoria, does not require one to get on drugs or get surgery to act culturally as the other gender. Understanding that gender is just cultural expectations by society means one can make different choices in adapting to and fulfilling their emotional desires.

Sex dysphoria on the other hand is often solved by physical disguises, drugs, or surgeries. Such things are last resort to solve issues, and yet I've come across people who think gender dysphoria should be solved by such changes, then regret the pain and loss they went through.

The point is that clear language allows a clear identity of issues. With clear identities, we can come up with clear solutions. The current lumping of the term which describes two separate issues is causing a confusion and mix within the community itself, and as such is causing great harm where decisions are incorrectly made for one's condition.

Finally, there is confusion outside of the community as well. Many people are willing to accept decision in regards to gender for gender issues, and sex regarding sex issues. But when people believe the subject is gender, and sex issues creep in, there can be backlash or disagreement. Thus, it serves everyone involved for the clearest language possible that describes the issue most accurately.

This assumes genetic make up as-is, determines sex - where is does not. So, "harm" is probably not apt, but it is flatly incorrect to assign a status of 'sex' to a genetic variation within an established sex. This ruins your aim entirely. — AmadeusD

I'm surprised to hear you say this. So if I'm XX I can be male? Have you really thought this one through? What is your alternative and why is that better than genetics?

Again, sex is already established as somthing that genetic variation does not determine, so it is again, flatly wrong to attribute a 'sex' status to a genetic variation - this, aside from it being exactly against your purported aim for the thread. — AmadeusD

Where is this established?

Klinefelter syndrome
— Philosophim

Is strictly a condition present in males.. It is determined firstly, by the subject being male. The highlighted section in your link (i assume you were pointing me to that?) indicates this clearly, without ambiguity. Phenotype has merely a correlative relation to sex (extremely closely correlated, it must be said). The case study presented is concerned solely with phenotype. The researches know this person is male, and that is the basis for this being a novel case (well, novel, after three examples? lol). — AmadeusD

And my point is, "How do we determine what is male?" In this case, its likely genetalia and because the majority of cases exhibit more male secondary sex characteristics. But I can see another culture creating a new sex out of it. You're missing a major point: We make language up AmadeusD. The goal of language is to create a clear and simple line of communication within one's culture. So if a culture wants to call Klinefelter syndrome a new sex, makes sense. If they want to modify it off of only desiring to have two sexes, makes sense. It doesn't matter.

What does matter is blending gender and sex together, as there are clear logical distinctions between sex and gender that lead to poor logical thinking when blended. The two are distinct enough to warrant their own words.

I propose a highly robust hypothesis based on its remarkable explanatory power for the huge, superficially chaotic data set of our moral sense and cultural moral codes, no contradiction with known facts, no remotely competitive hypotheses, simplicity, and integration with the rest of science. — Mark S

No, you don't. Look Mark, proposing cultural values are moral values is ethics 101. Its highly debated. Your 'no contradiction with known facts' is dogmatic at this point with the examples I've given you. I still see no posted scientific papers that agree with you. You haven't addressed the specific examples I've given you like "Dying for your country". I'm not feeling like you're engaging with questioning, but dogmatically harping that your theory is right because 'science'.

As such, I'm quickly losing interest. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm letting you know the glaring weaknesses of your claim which would be dismantled in any professional setting in seconds. If you want to explore the examples I gave you and try to find solutions, feel free. But if you're just here to preach, good luck to you, I'm out.

I am still finding it unclear what principle you are using to decipher when to to use what UOM, but, if I may, I think I can serve a solution: if more existence is better than less, then whatever UOM, and (not to mention) what measuring tool, is most precise is ideal; however, whatever is practical will prevail, which is really just the most precise tool and UOM available in any reasonable manner, because we haven’t created such an ideal tool (yet or perhaps ever, although we would strive towards developing it if your theory is adhered to). If this is something you agree with, then I think we have resolved my confusion about UOMs. — Bob Ross

Yes, this is the underlying principle behind the proposed measurements. I agree!

The two main issues, in summary, I would say, is that (1) “existence” is an entirely too vague an idea in your theory (thus far, I believe it to be roughly equivalent to complexity and not being) — Bob Ross

Its not complexity per say, its about more existence measured in identities and potential per material existence. Higher morality is often times going to be more 'complex' as a result.

(2) there is not an ounce, if I may be so bold, of proof that more existence being good is not good as a matter of subjective dispositions. — Bob Ross

I'm assuming you're intending to say "There's no proof that its not a subjective matter that existence is good." To my mind you have a different way of viewing subjectivity then most would take, but I have little disagreement with your overall view in how we understand the world. Regardless of this, at best my proposal for morality is based off of the supposition that there is an objective morality. If of course there is no objective morality, than this is wrong. Finally, my stabs in the dark, while done with an underlying guide, are most certainly not objective but educated attempts at grasping the underlying 'objective' push.
Still, I think this is the best stab at the traditional idea of objectivity I know of in the pursuit of morality, so until something better comes along I'm going to keep exploring this.

Nevertheless, if one accepts that “more existence is good”, and understands that “existence” refers here to “complexity”, then it is clear and correct the project which you are working on by denoting ‘material’, ‘potential’, ‘expressive’, etc. ‘existences’ and your conclusions seem pretty, by-at-large, accurate relative to that project. — Bob Ross

Thanks! Its nice to see its not completely out there in left field.

The more I have thought about it, your theory starts from bottom-up but, although it is important and necessary to start with that approach, requires an up-bottom approach to determine an ideal state of reality. — Bob Ross

Agreed. Its difficult to convey the theory because it must start with the basics, but its hard to show others how this is going to lead into the top level of morality that people are actually interested in. Trying to find that blend without confusing people or them losing interest was part of what I'm trying to do here.

On this, our theories actually converge; however, we diverge in that for you the balance is just a means towards what is good (which, in turn, for you, is the greatest complexity of being) whereas, for me, the balance (i.e., harmony) is what is good. I say that not to derail our conversation into a comparison of theories; but I have just grown to see the similarities in our views that I had not seen before and wanted to share (: — Bob Ross

No worry about divergence, this is good. The step after understanding the theory was to apply it to broadly accepted ideas of morality today and see how if it both fits in with our intuitions, explains why, and if it contradicts our intuitions has solid reasoning. As noted, its not complexity per say, but the existence of the highest number of identities and potential existence over a period of time. I've labeled this homeostasis, but harmony works just as well. To my mind, harmony works as it tries to find an equilibrium between competing existences that allows as much to exist over time as possible without collapse.

Here's a good question: how does your theory handle suffering? — Bob Ross

We had not gotten to the level of human and social morality in depth yet, but no, at first glance unnecessary suffering would not be moral. Suffering is a state of oppression on life. For life to have its full potential, suffering should be minimized where possible as it prevents life from acting as fully as it could. This makes sense because suffering is a state that lets the body know that there is something that is inhibiting it, harming it, or could destroy it. Suffering as a detection and motivation tool is necessary to ensure life defends itself. Unnecessary suffering is when the detection tool is going off, but there is nothing the life can do to appease it.

In the case of torturing another person, taken in the vacuum of:
1. The person doing the torturing is doing it only for pleasure

Its not moral. First, there's holding a person against their will. Second, one is causing bodily harm in some way to create suffering. So in all ways we are decreasing the potential existence of a human being. The benefit of another being having a pleasant emotion is overall a net negative for existence, and therefore wrong.

I'll let you answer that and ask about any other moral applications you're interested in. If you have none, I'll address some of the more subjective problems that are better explained through this theory of existential morality such as cross cultural morality.

According to the worldview of Materialism, "nothing" is non-sense. — Gnomon

Nonsense. :D Nothing is the negation of material. You can't have materialism without it. "Aether theories" have largely been discredited in the scientific world from my understanding. Not that it really matters. Do materialists understand the number zero? Then we're good.

And, since the physical world does exist, it must have always existed in some form or other. Also, how or why it came to be is not an empirical question, hence more non-sense. If there is nothing to explain its existence, then it's cause is a matter of Faith. — Gnomon

There is no logical conclusion which leads to the idea that since the material world exists, it must have always existed. Nor is that an empirical conclusion. My proof is a logical proof, not an empirical one so I don't care if they dismiss it because its not empirical. They seem fine holding the idea that existence must have always existed without any empirical proof, so I can't take them seriously.

Hence Ideal notions, such as "something from nothing", are literally nonsensical, since we cannot sense nothingness. And from the perspective of modern Materialism, non-sensible is non-sensical. — Gnomon

I'm not saying "Something from nothing". Nothing is not causing something. Its something incepted despite there being nothing which caused it to be. If non-sensible is non-sensible than once again, claiming that the universe has always existed is also nonsense. If they dismiss the question out of hand, I don't care once again as this is a logical exploration, not empirical.

Ironically, modern science postulates several causal features of reality that are logical inferences instead of sensory observations. For example Energy is the universal cause of all changes in the world, but we never detect the Energy per se, we only infer its logically-necessary existence from after-effects in material objects. Likewise, the notion of electric or quantum Fields is a logical inference from observation of changes in the material world*3. How that universal or local field came to be --- "popped into existence" --- is irrelevant for pragmatic Science : it just is, and it works. — Gnomon

Bingo. Which is why the argument against logical conclusions that do not have empirical means of testability is hypocritical and can be hand waved away.

The First Cause is simply another inference from logical necessity. But is it Real? Of course not. It's Ideal. — Gnomon

Its not idea either. Its a logical conclusion through reason. Denying it inevitably leads back to its necessity. So its not a matter of faith either, but reason.

There is the question whether a first cause, lacking a precedent, must be eternal. — ucarr

There is no question, its one of the main points of the OP. Whether the universe is finite or infinitely regressive, there is necessarily a first cause.

Also, there is the question whether or not an eternal existence is self-caused rather than uncaused. — ucarr

Its uncaused. For something to be self-caused it would need to exist, then do something to ensure it exists. A self-sustaining entity is part of causality. "Why does A exist in state B at this time? Because A existed in state B one second prior". That's self-sustaining which is not a first cause.

Given: No should and no should not, we have equilibrium as nothing. Given: No restrictions and no intentions, again we have equilibrium as nothing.

I'm not seeing how this is any different from claiming: "First cause popped into existence from nothing." — ucarr

Right, this is a consequence of the conclusion that a first cause must exist. You didn't counter that a first cause must logically exist, which is where we arrive at the conclusion that the inception of a first cause is not caused by anything else.

Following from this we have: a) there is no something-from-nothing, so, no first cause from nothing; b) there is no other thing in the role of a precedent for first cause. Given these restrictions, first cause cannot pop into existence from nothing and it cannot come from a precedent, thus it must be eternally self-caused. — ucarr

A} needs to be clarified. Nothing doesn't cause something. It just means there is nothing which causes the inception of the first cause. b) is fine as long as you mean, "There is nothing which causes the first cause". Given these restrictions the only conclusion is that something can incept without nothing causing it. Self-cause does not work. Being explained by the fact that it does exist does not mean, "It causes itself as a first cause".

It's okay to claim: "First cause popped into existence from nothing." Maybe so. I'm only claiming this declaration is not the conclusion of a logical sequence of reasoning. — ucarr

How so? If a first cause is uncaused by something else, then its existence cannot be explained by something else. This means its existence cannot be limited by something else either. Meaning, there is no logical reason for its existence besides the fact it exists. Meaning that what can potentially be a first cause is limitless. This is all a clear logical flow Ucarr. Address this specifically if you think its not logical.

You can't fulfill the claim of your title until you present a logical sequence of reasoning that necessarily concludes with: "First cause popped into existence from nothing." — ucarr

I'm going to state this clearly again. This is not the point of the thread nor the title. The point is that a first cause is necessary. The conclusion that its inception happened without anything prior causing it, and concluding that anything could have happened, concludes from examining the logical conclusions of what being a first cause entails. These are two separate issues.

When you say you establish what a first cause is, you merely define first cause. That's okay to do. — ucarr

True.

You can't fulfill the claim of your title until you present a logical sequence of reasoning that necessarily concludes with: "First cause popped into existence from nothing." When you say you establish what a first cause is, you merely define first cause. That's okay to do. However, it's a claim of truth based on words asserted without a logical sequence of reasoning to justify them. Proceeding from here, you claim no reasons for or against existence of a first cause and no restrictions or intentions as to what the identity of first cause shall be. That's okay to do. However, again, it's a claim of truth based on words asserted without a logical sequence of reasoning to justify them. — ucarr

Ucarr, are you accidently confusing logical necessity with empirical necessity? The theory of relativity was logically correct. It was only confirmed as empirically correct when observing an eclipse. I've never stated my points are empirically correct. Logical correctness is "If we take these statements and definitions, reasonably this is the only conclusion we can reach." It doesn't mean it actually exists. Logically, I've presented the argument several times now. And not once have you taken the argument and demonstrated why the logic is incorrect. Do that and you'll have an argument. Otherwise, my points stand.

Perhaps your conversation title should be: Concluding A First Cause Simply Exists is a Logical Necessity. Isn't this what you've been saying over and over? — ucarr

Its an odd way to word it Ucarr. 'Concluding' is redundant, and 'simply' is unnecessary. "Exists" doesn't work because that's present tense and I don't know if a first cause continues to exist or not. The title is proper English without redundancy.

Okay. You're saying a first cause is uncaused. I think we agree this is a definition for which logical proof is impossible. — ucarr

If you mean empirical, yes, that's going to be extremely difficult to do. As a definition, its fine. I'm not sure what you mean by 'logical proof is impossible'. If we can start with 'not A' (our definition) and demonstration that we need to conclude 'A' as true at the end, then this is a logical proof that A must be.

If first cause refers to an eternal universe, there follows the question whether anything is caused because everything has always existed, whether actually or potentially. — ucarr

No, an eternal universe that has causation in it is comprised of causal moments. Meaning that which has not happened yet does not exist. That which no longer exists, does not exist. We're just referring to the causal chains that lead up to this point of reality. So there is no question that causality exists in such a universe.

Going up an infinite causal regression does not conclude with arrival at a point; the points continue without arrival being possible. — ucarr

You are misunderstanding how the set of an infinitely regressive universe still has to answer "What caused it?". Here's another example.

Here is a set of infinite regressive causality: 2t + infinity = Y

Infinity represent the number of causal existences in the universe. t stands for time, which for an infinite universe, has an arbitrary origin. So time can flow infinitely forward and backwards with no beginning or end. 2 represents that after every tick of that universe, 2 more causes happen.

Now here's the question which you have to answer Ucarr. Why is it 2t + infinity = Y and not 3t + infinity = Y? Is there anything outside which caused it to be one way over the other? How about 4t? Or -1T +2? You see we've captured the causal chain of the infinite universe, but that still hasn't answered "What caused that universe to exist?" My point is there is no outside cause by logical proof. If you say "A" is what caused the universe to be 2T + infinity = Y, I'm going to ask, "And what caused A?" And we're right back at the same conclusion, "Nothing". You have to logically break out of this to have a point.

If something is part of an existing universe, how can it be without precedent? No, a first cause, by your oft-repeated definition: "Something which is not caused by anything else." cannot be other than a new and independent universe. An existing universe cannot spawn a first cause. — ucarr

I never said another first cause was caused by the universe it incepts in. I noted that a first cause could incept within an universe because there is nothing that can cause it not to. For example, potentially there could have been other matter that was in existence before the big bang (if we are using the big bang as an example, not a literal, first cause). There is nothing within the logic I've noted that would prevent this from happening, therefore it is logically permitted.

I'm asking you to give me an example of a universe without a first cause in its causation chain.
— Philosophim

An eternal universe is an example because it has no beginning and no causation. — ucarr

Then the first cause of the universe when we ask, "What caused a universe which has no beginning and is eternal" is "Nothing". This is proving my point Ucarr, not countering it.

I can't prove existence of such a universe logically. I can only declare it as an axiom from which reasoning follows. — ucarr

And that's not an issue. I can't either. I also can't prove the universe did not eternally exist. Its irrelevant. Whether the universe eternally existed or did not, there is at least one first cause. THAT I've logically proven.

Below I reprint an argument you haven't responded to:

...you cannot talk rationally about nothing (or anything else) causing the universe to exist because it's impossible to ascertain any logical reason for its existence. This is so because reason_cause imply sequence, but infinite value cannot be specified and therefore cannot be [logically] sequenced. — ucarr

I've answered this earlier here.

Why did one type of eternal universe exist, whereas another universe does not? There is no answer besides the fact one type of universe, space and matter, exists.
— Philosophim

This is not a sequence of reasoning. If it were, you would include a list of possible reasons for only one type of universe — ucarr

What? No. Its reasonable because the alternative proposal, "That a universe without a first cause can exist" leads to the conclusion that "A first cause must exist". Go back to the math sets I wrote.

You think claiming as fact "there is but one type of universe" is reasoning? Give me a logical explanation for your belief. See my statement above (infinity cannot be sequenced) for an example of
reasoning toward a conclusion. — ucarr

I'm not claiming there is but one type of universe, and you know that at this point. Please don't resort to claims like this. You know I have stated several times that there is at least one first cause, and that I make no claim as to what that specific first cause is empirically or logically.

I therefore conclude, logically, that completing the circuit requires bypassing the plastic. — ucarr

Yes, you used logic but also empiricism. This is an empirical claim, not a logical claim. You have not proven that its logically impossible to complete the circuit unless you bypass the plastic. You only know given the materials, tools, and techniques you have, you have no other means of completing the circuit by bypassing the plastic. If you proved that there was no method in existence which could. A logical proof would be an argument that demonstrates that no matter what material, tool, or techniques anyone comes up with, even those we haven't discovered yet, it is impossible to complete the circuit without bypassing the plastic.

I am noting that given an infinitely regressively caused universe or a finitely regressively caused universe, a first cause is logically necessary.

My example parallels:
Why did one type of eternal universe exist, whereas another universe does not? There is no answer besides the fact one type of universe, space and matter, exists.
— Philosophim

This is an observation, not an explanation. You have no argument towards claiming logically only one type of universe exists. On the basis of your information-scarce observation, there's no logical reason to conclude there exists only one type of universe. You insist people believe your claim because you say so. — ucarr

This is not an observation, this is an example. The explanation is noting that at least one first cause is logically necessary. And this is an example of that being true. The logical proof allows you to plug in any type of universe you can imagine, and its still true. I'm not saying this prooves "One type of universe exists". I'm noting that no matter what it exists, a matter universe, non-matter universe, or 2t + infinity = y universe, there must be at least one first cause in its one or many causal chains.

I've put in bold letters what's at the center of our debate: "There is nothing that explains the being of a first cause."

Here we have your fatal mistake in mostly your own words. By definition -- not by a sequence of reasoning -- you state without explanation the truth about a first cause: it's an axiom by supposition. Moreover, it cannot be explained logically because, as you say, "There is (by definition) nothing which explains its being." — ucarr

If a first cause is true, then it follows that "There is nothing that explains the being of a first cause." The logic is in showing that there must be at least one first cause. If you can demonstrate that it is not necessary that there is at least one first cause within a chain of causality, then of course its moot. Look at it this way. "Flying unicorns fly. But if we don't prove a flying unicorn is logically necessary, its moot." First causes have no prior cause for their existence, which means nothing explains its being. But if we don't prove a first cause is logically necessary, its moot.

Your goal is to demonstrate that a first cause is not necessary. You are not going to win by challenging the definition of the first cause, if the definition is logically necessary. The only way to do that is to demonstrate that logically a universe can exist that does not inevitably arrive at a first cause within its causal chain. Keep trying Ucarr!

Can I ask you, setting aside the complex theory, if you had to explain trans to a group of people with no understanding of the issue, how would you frame it? — Tom Storm

I don't think Josh's reply answered your question. I have a close friend of over 20 years who is trans, and I've been studying the issue for a few years both in papers, and in the community.

The easiest way to describe transgender to people who are unaware is that it is a strong emotional proclivity to want to express aspects commonly associated with the opposite sex. In 'gender' specifically, it is a desire to take on mostly the cultural aspects such as manner of speech, dress, and behavior the individual associates with the other sex. In matters of transexualism, which is the division being noted here, it is a desire to take on the secondary and/or primary sex characteristics of the opposite sex. Currently, these two notions are lumped under the same moniker 'transgender' which causes a lot of confusion.

This desire can be primarily driven by positive or negative emotions. Some examples of negatively driven desires are hatred of their own gender/sex. Not wanting the expectations of their gender/sex. Escaping their personal disgust/fear of being gay. Some positive examples are beliefs that life will be easier as the other gender/sex. An enjoyment of the cultural aspects of the other gender/sex that they believe they cannot enjoy as their current gender/sex. Sexual and romantic enjoyment in being the other gender/sex.

The desire is of course extremely strong or persistent. So it affects the individual to the point where the enjoyment is so great, or the displeasure of not exhibiting cross gender/sex is so painful, that they are willing to do whatever it takes to satisfy or appease those desires. Most understand it is not 'rational'. Practicing transgender/transexual actions serves to somewhat appease these desires.

I am going to be insistent. There are two sexes. Genetics do not determine sex. Genetics are variable within sex. — AmadeusD

If sex is biological there is no harm in attributing a new label to a different genetic structure. There is also no harm in your classification either. Let me explain.

There is a constant occurrence in language which comes up in which there is the question of whether a varient of a common definition deserves an adjective or its own word. For example some bushes could be labeled as 'short trees' while some trees could be labeled as 'tall bushes'. There should be a good reason to create a new word instead of an adjective, but sometimes there are issues where the line becomes blurry.

In the case of sex, I have no issue creating a new word within the moniker of sex as long as it does not divert out of pure biology. Further, this new sex must have something substantially and meaningfully different from another existent sex. In the case of XXY, there is a clear biological difference. Its called Klinefelter syndrome, is is most often a variant of maleness. Yet in some cases, it appears to be a variant of femaleness. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15755052/#:~:text=Background%3A%20Males%20with%20a%2047,of%20this%20phenomenon%20is%20unclear.

So we could label it as 'female Klinefelter or male Klinefelter', or we could call it a new sex "Klinefelter" for example. Society can decide and to me, its practically irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. So if someone wants to label it a new sex, sure. If they want to adjective it, sure. As long as it is purely based on biology and not behavior, I don't believe it matters at all.

They do counter it. You keep referring to two sexes. Many within the transgender community no longer accept this binary, even if we treat it as two opposite poles of a spectrum. — Joshs

Then please indicate what this counter is. A counter is a reasoned set of facts, propositions, and logical conclusions. An opinion or desire is not a counter.

Also, I did note that XXY could easily be indicated as a different sex. So no, I have not been insistent that there are only two sexes. For the general discussion, we are using two sexes. If you wish to discuss exceptions by addressing XXY etc., I still do not see this in opposition to my points.

It a not a question of crossing from one sex to another, but of questioning the categorical purity of the concept of biological sex. — Joshs

I understand. My point doesn't change. If behavior is necessarily associated with one's biological sex, it must only exhibit in that sex. If the same behavior can be seen in both sexes, then it is not sexual behavior, but human behavior. Unless the transgender community can counter this, they do not have a valid argument.

Many in the transgender community believe that gender is intertwined in a hopelessly inseparable way not only with cultural influences, but interweaves culture and the biological sex just as inseparably — Joshs

A belief is fine if its backed by some legitimate reasoning. From my experience, its not. Sex is biology. Behaviors that necessarily require you to be a sex are the only behaviors that could be said to necessarily flow from sex. Makes sense right? Behaviors that can cross the sexes are not solely sexual behaviors. It may be a secondary effect from sex that certain behaviors are more likely to crop up, but obviously these behaviors would exist despite sex differences.

Its a contradiction to say that behaviors belong to one sex, but can cross into the other sex. Thus the transgender communities rationalization is not rational.

Would you agree that in humans and other mammals
there are sex-correlated differences in brain function that lead to the differences in behavior between males and females that allow, for instance, dog owners and trainers to quickly recognize males and females on the basis of these inborn brain differences and they are manifested in behavior? — Joshs

I would without any issue. But these are generalities. An aggressive or gay female does not mean they aren't female. A passive or gay male does not mean they are not male. And no male or female animal that we can tell desires to be the opposite sex. That's a human conscious decision. Motivation or desire to be the other sex doesn't mean you were born in the wrong body or aren't your natal sex. Just like the desire to be more intelligent or taller doesn't mean you were somehow denied an innate tallness or intelligence that you don't have. The brokenness is the desire to be the other sex to the point of thinking you can actually be the other sex. Its not that you were born in the wrong body.

I suppose theres a level of correctness in your title and I believe the immutable part of sex, as the discussion is pointing towards is the Gametes. That being said every pathos of distance has ranks of gradations between them. "Male," and "Female," is useful for clarity in spoken language. It doesn't really tell you much about a person. — Vaskane

I'm not arguing against sex variations. For example, if you're an XXY human, you're not exactly a common male. There is absolutely nothing wrong with defining this as a new sex. My point is only that it is immutable. What this tells us about a person is simply that, the fact they have XXY chromosomes and how that impacts their physical reality. This is still a separate discussion from gender.

"Nothing" in this context can be read in multiple ways: a) nothing as in no cause of space; b) nothing as in nothingness, a something that caused space, in which case the infinite regress towards a true first cause is under way; c) nothing as a category which includes logic, so first cause cannot be logically necessary. — ucarr

The intended way of reading it is a).

My central point continues to be the claim no causation precludes any type of sequence, including something from nothing. — ucarr

We're in agreement here then. I'm not claiming something comes from nothing. A first cause doesn't come from anything. I'm just noting that prior to a first causes inception, there is no prior causation or 'no thing'. Nothing is not a 'thing', but the absence of anything.

Also, it should be noted that a causal chain exemplifies logical continuity as expressed: A ⟹ ~A = False. In English this sentential logic statement translates to "An existing thing does not imply the negation of itself." Following from this, claiming causeless first cause tries to equate sequence with the negation of sequence, the definition of first cause. — ucarr

A first cause exists, it does not negate itself. If it did, it would be gone. I'm not understanding how you see a first cause implies its own negation.

I haven't forgotten your argument that before first cause a potential first cause can be anything, no restrictions and then, after inception of first cause, logical sequencing and its limitations are in effect.

This is an incomplete narrative of how first cause incepts because a declaration stating first cause can be anything in no way explains and justifies inception of first cause. — ucarr

You have my logic backwards. I'm not saying anything can be a first cause, thus justifying the inception of a first cause. I first establish what a first cause is, something which is not caused by anything prior or else. The consequence of this logically means that prior to the inception of a first cause, there was no reason why it should, or should not have formed. And if there is no reason why a first cause should or should not have formed, there is no limitations or rules that shape what a first cause should, or should not be.

If, as you say, even an infinitely regressive universe entails logical necessity of a first cause, that's merely saying in different words that: Everything, even an infinite universe, must have a beginning. In this situation of the causeless eternal universe, you're building a contradiction because there's no nothing for first cause to incept from. — ucarr

No, I am not saying everything needs a beginning. Again, we're taking the entire set of the eternal regressive universe and asking, "What caused this to exist?" The answer is nothing besides the fact that it exists. Thus a first cause.

If you're postulating an infinitely regressive universe that contains local first causes, then you're constructing a contradictory universe because if there comes into existence something causeless, then it's necessarily another, independent universe. — ucarr

No, its another separate causal chain inception. A first cause is the inception of a causal chain. When we're talking about 'the universe' we're implicitly talking about, "What caused the universe," What I'm noting is all causal chains have a point in which we reach an 'end', or the start of causation. When looking at a regressive infinite universe, we're going up the causal chain until we get to the point in the chain where we ask, "What caused an infinitely regressive universe to exist?" And the answer is, "Nothing, it exists without any prior causation." Thus the first cause.

Anything contained within the causeless universe cannot be first-caused because, being a part of a causeless universe, by definition it cannot be separate from said causeless universe. — ucarr

Anything within a causal chain caused by something prior cannot be a first cause. But this does not prevent something outside of that particular causal chain from appearing and starting its own causal chain.

Furthermore, the independent universe as first cause is building a contradiction because -- again -- in the situation of an eternal universe, there's no nothing for a first cause to incept from. — ucarr

The real contradiction is nothing that something else creates a first cause. It is completely in keeping with logic that the inception of a first cause entails nothing prior causes its inception. You're making the mistake of looking at the universe instead of the causal chain of that universe.

You still haven't addressed the issue of the paradox of an eternal existence being self-caused. If a thing causes itself, then simultaneously it is and is not itself. This is a logical argument against existence of first cause. — ucarr

Can you explain this? I'm not sure how you arrive at this conclusion. If something negates itself, its gone. A thing cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. How do you conclude what's being said here leads to this?

Also, in the situation of an eternal universe, the start point cannot be ascertained; it's impossible. Well, if a start point is impossible to ascertain, then logical necessity of a first cause it likewise impossible to ascertain. It can only be supposed axiomatically. — ucarr

You are confusing the "start of the universe" with the "start of the causal chain". The start of the causal chain is taking all the causation within that universe and putting it in a set. Then asking, "What caused this set?" Nothing. There is no prior cause.

Let me give you another example which might make this more clear. Lets say that there IS something which causes an eternally existing universe to be. There is an existence A which is able to retroactively cause an infinitely regressive universe B. Is this somehow less contradictory? And does it escape the inevitable question, "What caused A?" The answer is no to both. If you are stating that my conclusion is wrong, then you have to accept the alternative situation. This is what I'm trying to get you to see. All you're doing is noting, "A first cause cannot exist with an eternal universe," but you're not examining what that must necessarily entail if this is true either. Its why I'm asking you to give me an example of a universe without a first cause in its causation chain.

In the case of an eternal universe, you cannot talk rationally about nothing (or anything else) causing the universe to exist because it's impossible to ascertain any logical reason for its existence. This is so because reason_cause imply sequence, but infinite value cannot be specified and therefore cannot be sequenced. — ucarr

As I've noted, we can do this by taking the set of causation within the infinite universe and asking what caused the set.

Are you noticing how I always support my assertions with potentially falsifiable arguments? I never claim that such and such is so because my words say they are so. You do this over and over again. Your claims in this thesis always terminate in claiming it is so because the words you write say it is so. Your central claim is not potentially falsifiable — ucarr

Its very falsifiable. But I have yet to see its false. My arguments conclude it is true. That's very different from it not being falsifiable. As I've noted above, I've tried to say, "Assume it is false, what do we arrive at?" The frustration Ucarr is your inability to demonstrate it is false so far. Which is fine, keep trying. If it were clearly false, we would not be still having this discussion.

Why did one type of eternal universe exist, whereas another universe does not? There is no answer besides the fact one type of universe, space and matter, exists.
— Philosophim

It is not a presupposition, its a conclusion that we arrive at...
— Philosophim

In your example, there is no arrival and no conclusion; instead, there is an observation and a declaration without any reasoning toward it: — ucarr

You know this isn't correct at this point. This is frustration. Don't let that win. I've laid the reasoning out clearly at this point.

There is no answer besides the fact one type of universe, space and matter, exists.
— Philosophim — ucarr

You see Ucarr, the argument's conclusion is logically necessary.
— Philosophim

Don't confuse the logical decision to make an unexplainable observation axiomatically with logically explaining the content of that observation. You're doing the former, not the latter. — ucarr

If you're going to assert that, you need to demonstrate that. Otherwise this is just not wanting to accept a conclusion.

He [ucarr] doesn't like the idea that there was nothing, then something.
— Philosophim

I don't accept the claim: "Something from nothing" declared without explanation proves logical necessity of a first cause. — ucarr

Just to repeat, I am not claiming this. You have the order of logic backwards. First comes the logical necessity of a first cause, then comes the conclusion that this means the inception of a first cause cannot be explained by anything else, thus there is nothing prior which could cause a limit on what or would not incept as a first cause.

What I'm trying to show him is that an eternally self-existent thing is no different. There is nothing which explains its being.* No limitations on what could have been besides the fact of its existence.
— Philosophim

Generally, I accept all of this. Specifically, I don't accept an axiomatic declaration as a rational explanation of the logical necessity of first cause. — ucarr

Maybe you're right that its axiomatic, but can you break it down how you arrive that its merely a declaration? Let me give you an example. A declaration is "A". I could easily state, "Not A" and as far as declarations go, both are viable. But what I'm noting is that if you start with "Not A" it necessarily leads to "A", and if you declare "A", it necessarily leads to A. That's not a declaration, that's a proof where we conclude A must be true.

“When we say that a set is finite or infinite, we are referring to the number of elements in the set, not to the "extent" (putting it roughly) of those elements.” — ucarr

Correct.

The critical question pertinent to our debate is whether or not you can talk logically about the before or after of a bounded infinity. When talking logically about the start of a chain of causality, you’re talking about the beginning of a continuity. That’s talking about the extent of a series. Since the infinite number of elements populating the series precludes you from ascertaining a start point, you can’t claim logically that before the start point there were such and such necessary conditions because you cannot specify a start point. — ucarr

Your mistake is that you are looking inside the set for a start point. The start point is not inside the set. It is the question of what caused the entire set. If I have an infinite series of decimals vs an infinite series of whole numbers, they are separate infinites in what they express correct?

As an analogy, I'm asking, "What caused the universe to be a set of whole numbers vs a set of decimals?" The answer is again, nothing. There was no outside cause which necessitated it be whole numbers or decimals. There is no outside reason which caused an infinitely regressive eternal universe to be composed of space vs water. There is no outside reason for the eternal universe to exist in such a way where a big bang happened, vs none at all. And remember, if you deny it, give me the alternative Ucarr. If I'm wrong, what does that entail, and does that make any sense at all?

It's illegitimate to do so by simply making the declaration: "This is the start point, and before the start point there was nothing, thus the start point examples an uncaused start point, i.e., a first cause.” Doing this examples arbitrarily marking a start point by decree — ucarr

Again, the mistake here is only looking inside of the set for causality. The causal chain extends out to include the set itself. This is not by decree, but the natural next step in going through the chain of causality.

Your reply seems a little simplistic and not embracing the dilemmas of transgender individuals. I have worked with people who are transgender in mental healthcare and the nature of labels, what one is biologically and what what one wishes to become. It does involve ideas of the 'body'. — Jack Cummins

Sounds like you've worked with transexuals then. There are people who want to be transgender yet not change their physical bodies. One of my best friends of 20 years is flirting with transexualism right now. We discuss these issues regularly and both agree that the current vocabulary to talk about these issues is flat out awful and needs improvement.

While yes, individuals vary in their experiences, when we talk about words that apply to the broader culture we need to create words of proper scope with more details and less generalizations. An academic approach is very much needed in a broader social sense to have good and open discussions.

The division between sex and gender is complex because a person's identity as being male or female involves so much, including reproductive functions and sexual expression. — Jack Cummins

I don't think it has to be complex. Since gender is cultural, the cultural expectations for a man or woman in different cultures can differ. Its about the culture one wants to identify with, not the biology. If someone wants the biology of another sex, that's not transgender, that's transex. When trying to emulate another sex, you take on the gender of that sex you are emulating. Thus you are trying to use a gender that matches your sex, and really aren't transgender.

I appreciate it and agree. I suppose what I'm trying to do here is note that transgender and transex are not only not the same, they preclude one another. If you are transex, then you are not transgender as you are trying to take on gender aspects of the sex you are emulating and aspiring to be. Thus being transgender does not make one transex, and being transex does not make one transgender (unless of course a person who is transex tried to act like the gender of their original sex, but most won't)

Thus I don't believe there's any good reason at all to lump the meaning of these two words into one.

Sex isn't exactly binary either. — Vaskane

Which is fine. There are definite exceptions to the rule. I don't believe those exceptions change what I'm noting here for most people though.

Making the types of arguments we're making get people fired, in the real world. — AmadeusD

This is when we need to speak about it the most then. Philosophy often is dismissed as 'useless'. I think this is a good venue for it and philosophers need speak up.

I think Gender is merely a loose system of categorizing social roles and behaviours, and should be relegated to a nicety and nothing determinant of anything whatever in Law or elsewhere. — AmadeusD

I agree. Which is why using words that more clearly delineate between the two is important.

I do not think transexual people are transgendered. A transgendered person exhibits cultural actions that defy their sex. A transexual person is trying to act in a gendered way that fits the sex they want to be.
— Philosophim

I'm unsure whether you misspoke here, or are conflating the two ideas you're trying to prise apart. — AmadeusD

Yes, my mistake that I'll edit back in. I meant "defy the cultural expectations of their sex."

In a similar vein, the concept of 'transexual' makes only logical sense, and not practical sense. Sex can't be traversed. — AmadeusD

Sex cannot be transversed, its true. It can be emulated through hormones and surgery. Transexualism seems the easiest word for this, but if another word would fit it better, I would have no problem. Sex emulation? Feel free to contribute if you wish. :)

It is ill-defined, badly researched and reported even worse. If it were possible to eek out an exact notion of transgenderism, we could move forward - but those who use the term seem terminally incapable of doing so. — AmadeusD

I think trying to make a word better defined is a common pursuit in philosophy. If you wish to give up, that's fine. But I think its worth thinking about. I'm more interested in what you think about the underlying difference I've noted here. Do you think it works that transexual people (as defined here) are not actually transgendered, but sexual emulants trying to fit the gender of the sex they want to pass as?

↪ucarr seems to be reasoning from the assumption that the physical universe --- space-time, matter, energy --- could possibly be self-existent, hence no need for a First Cause or Creator. — Gnomon

A first cause is self-existent though. I think that's the problem he has. He doesn't like the idea that there was nothing, then something. What I'm trying to show him is that an eternally self-existent thing is no different. There is nothing which explains its being. No limitations on what could have been besides the fact of its existence.

Can you accept a paraphrase of: "A logical first cause is necessary" as follows: "Everything must have a beginning"? This is another way of examining logical necessity of first cause through the lens of an eternal existence. — ucarr

No, they're not the same thing. The point of the theory was to show that even in an infinitely regressive universe, a first cause is still logically necessary.

Let me give you an example. Lets say that space has always existed. What caused space to always exist? Nothing. Therefore space is a first cause. It is something within causality that itself was not caused. So no, an eternal universe does not preclude a first cause. Why is the universe eternal opposed to not? What caused it to be that way? Nothing.

*The incoherence of "A first cause is logically necessary" -- per your "argument" -- is the unexplained leap from nothing to something. — ucarr

There is nothing incoherent about it. Its simply the rational conclusion when thinking through the question of eternal versus finite regression. An eternal universe actually makes it even more obvious. In a finite universe there is at least still at least the question, "But maybe there was something prior?" An eternal universe has nothing prior. It has no prior cause for its existence.

Let me give you more examples. Lets imagine an eternal universe where water exists everywhere. It has always been, and will always be. Why? What caused the universe to exist in that way? Nothing. Now imagine its an eternal universe of just air. Same conclusion. Now an eternal universe of just space and matter. Same conclusion. Why did one type of eternal universe exist, whereas another universe does not? There is no answer besides the fact one type of universe, space and matter, exists.

It is not a presupposition, its a conclusion that we arrive at time and time again no matter how we tackle the problem. Assume "Finite universe exists" is false or true and we arrive at the same conclusion.

If we imagine a structure of existence featuring multi-verses, then I speculate that multi-verse, in parallel with the single universe structure, logically precludes a universal first cause for the totality of multi-verses, but not for independent universes with local first causes. — ucarr

Alright, lets imagine the multiverse. First, lets imagine a multiverse in which there is one universe that has eternally existed. What caused it? Nothing. Now lets imagine a multiverse where there are two separate universes that have always existed. What caused it? Nothing. And so on for infinity. Imagine that our multiverse is actually a set of eternally existent five universes. Why did a five universe exist instead of a one? Nothing. It exists because it does.

You see Ucarr, the argument's conclusion is logically necessary. There's no way to escape it. No matter what scenario you invent, the same question of, "What caused that to exist?" will always happen, and it will inevitably result in, "Nothing caused it to exist, it exists simply because it does." The idea that there is a way to escape this is what is incoherent. Try it. Give me an example of a universe that escapes this line of questioning and answers, and you'll have countered the argument. At least one first cause is the only coherent conclusion that can be reached. Maybe you can crack it, but I've been unable to.

‘Morality as Cooperation” as a hypothesis that explains past and present cultural moral norms and our moral sense has two parts — Mark S

Yes, its a hypothesis, not a confirmed scientific fact. I don't have a problem with examining the hypothesis. But if you're claiming its fact? There's a LOT that needs answering.

What people believe is moral is a function of the biology underlying their moral sense and cultural moral norms. That biology and those cultural norms can be explained in terms of their evolutionary origins. — Mark S

How do you explain someone who believes their cultural norms are immoral? For example, there is a culture in which a caste system exists and those on the lower end of the caste are said to deserve their lot. What if, as many have, find it immoral? Might of culture or law is often times not the same as morality, and yet you claim it is. You're only taking some people's viewpoint of the prescriptive morality in the culture, and not considering the other viewpoints of descriptive morality over the same rules and traditions in that culture. Descriptive morality is subjective to the people you select, but when you speak about universality, you need to address any and all discrepancies.

Like the rest of science, Morality as Cooperation will generally not have contradictions and is rationally consistent. (Any contradictions and irrationality in science indicate that the science needs more work.) However, our application of science could be irrational and inconsistent, just like people. Edge cases such as abortion, how much moral regard to give conscious creatures and ecosystems, and ethical concerns beyond interactions with other people are not necessarily handled at all. We might like for them to be, but that is not the case. — Mark S

This is a very unscientific set of thoughts.

1. I showed you quite a few contradictions and rational inconsistencies in your proposal that Morality is Cooperation.
2. Irrational application of science, is faulty science. Its not, "It could be faulty science." Demonstrate what is faulty or irrational.
3. Edge cases are NOT to be dismissed in science. Science constantly challenges its own conclusions, and if there is ANY discrepancy, that is swarmed over like flies until it is resolved.

Hand waving away anything that doesn't agree with the desired conclusion and telling people "It Doesn't matter if we don't like it" because 'science' says so, is not a good argument. A hypothesis that cannot answer discrepancies and offer concreate logical consistencies is a faulty hypothesis.

I assumed it was obvious that “moral” in quotes referred to descriptively moral. See my comment above about what is universally moral to all descriptively moral behaviors. What is universal to all descriptively moral behaviors is the ingroup morality that does not exploit others but is necessary to enforce moral norms that do exploit others. — Mark S

Many cultural norms or laws are exploitive or about co-option. How is dying for my country cooperation when I'm not going to receive one single benefit from dying for it? How is giving 10% of my money away to the church when I'm poor and need help cooperation? Often times morality has the threat of punishment or death if one does not follow it, such as following God's commands. Why would cooperation need threats if we both mutually benefit?

Thus your thesis that cooperation is universal conclusion we can take from all descriptive morality has a lot to answer before it can be claimed to be universal. Also, I think it would help at this point that you publish some of these scientific articles and conclusions you keep purporting. I'm curious at this point where you're getting this hypothesis from.

I appreciate you staying engaged with this and trying to answer the issues.

Ucarr, I know you don't like the conclusion here and are trying to demonstrate it is wrong. Lets go another route that might help more. Instead of trying to demonstrate why the conclusions here are false, try instead to prove that a first cause logically cannot exist. In other words, present to me a logical universe in which no first cause exists. If you can do that, then that's the same as countering the OP.

I keep coming up short, suggesting that an infinite past (duration) is not logically contradictory/impossible. Maybe "seemingly absurd" is more fitting? — jorndoe

The OP does not care if an infinite past is possible or not. The conclusion is the same.

Not a worry Bob!

I think it may be beneficial for us to distinguish the unit of measure from the unit being measured. A ‘liter’, ‘gram’, etc. are units of measure, whereas a ‘molecule’, ‘atom’, etc. are units being measured. — Bob Ross

It all depends on the context of measurement or 'scope'. A liter is fine when the substance is the same, but it is not if the substance is different. A liter of grape juice is more dense than a liter of water for example.

I think a way we can sidestep this whole issue of which unit to measure, is to only use discuss what unit of measure to use. The unit of measure does need to specify a unit being measured (viz., a gram of paper is a gram irregardless of one thinking of the paper as simply ‘a paper’ or ‘a glob of molecules’). — Bob Ross

This is fine by me in most cases.

However, the cost of this is that it also sidesteps most of your means of calculating ‘more existence’; as you have focused heavily on the (actual and potential) relationships between UCOM and very little has been said of UOM. — Bob Ross

Again, it depends on the context. If the scope of what we are examining is so large it doesn't require us to consider atoms or molecules as significant digits, then we don't. If however we create a situation where it is important, than we do.

If you still would like to evaluate ‘more existence’ in terms of UCOM, then I simply have failed to grasp why you insist on calculating in terms of ‘UCOMs one step down’ as opposed to uses the entity as a whole: why do you prefer calculating in terms of a thing’s composed parts instead of itself? — Bob Ross

In your specific instance your calculation was incorrect. You stated that two pieces of paper was more existence than one piece of paper, but these two pieces of paper were the result of dividing one piece of paper in half. In this case we must take the mass or molecules into consideration because those two pieces of paper are not double the amount of mass of the original piece of paper. That's all.

You seem to agree with me that there are some legitimate cases where one should use the thing instead of its parts (e.g., ‘one potato or two?’) but I failing to see why you keep insisting on using its parts in other cases (e.g., why use molecules instead of the paper?). If you could please elaborate on this, then that would be much appreciated. — Bob Ross

Certainly! The thing we are demonstrating is, "More existence is good." That's the gold standard that we have agreed upon. Our calculations and identities are all to meet that standard. If an example does not meet that standard, it does not mean the standard is wrong, it means the example or calculation is wrong. The calculations are just ways of measuring, and the question is whether they measure in such a way that serves this purpose, or if there is something incorrect in what they are capturing.

So, if we create an example that is faulty, or calculates incorrectly, it needs to be adjusted to the proper scope so that it never forgets its underlying purpose: A way to calculate existence correctly, logically, and consistently.

Necessity is not important...
— Philosophim

That's why you've been working your ass off with this conversation for months running? And by the way, who says "What is is not important?" Just because humans aren't necessary, that doesn't have to mean they aren't important. — ucarr

I think we're having a language issue again. Also, I've enjoyed the conversation. This is a hobby, not work. If I could make a living doing this, I would.

Describe a situation in nature wherein necessity is important apart from sentients — ucarr

Lets go over this again so you can better understand my answer. The word 'important', I read as 'important to some sentient'. Its important for a purpose. My answer, "Necessity is not important, its what is," means that necessity is a fact. Whether its important to someone or thing is irrelevant. 1+1 = 2 isn't important, its a fact. Do you understand the answer now?

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, it still vibrates the air molecules.
— Philosophim

So, you've been relaxing under island breezes.

Seems fitting after slaving in the trenches for a just cause. — ucarr

I don't understand your answer. Again, what exists does not need to be observed to exist. Causality does not need to be observed to be a fact of reality.