Lots of people are not fond of the truth. Maybe I said something he did not like, I don't remember. — Sir2u

Where did I say or imply that I know the truth? The truth about what? — Sir2u

See above.

"The truth about what?" How would I know what truth you were referring to.

"You see, Sir2u has the truth. And he doesn't have any beliefs". — Michael Ossipoff


What is the relation between truth and beliefs? Are you saying that a person cannot know the truth without having beliefs? . — Sir2u

If you claim a truth, then presumably you believe that what you claim is a truth. But then, knowing you, maybe not :D ...judging by your following statement:

I told him what he wanted to hear. And he was happy with it until you burst the bubble. — Sir2u

But, whether or not you believe what you say, I have no way of knowing what truth you were referring to.

And yes it is valid to say "because they have not told me" for the simple reason that it is the truth. They have not told me. — Sir2u

I merely said that that's irrelevant. Whatever the reason why you don't know all Theists, their beliefs, or their evidence for their beliefs, or their reasons for faith in the absence of evidence, the fact remains that you don't know.

Maybe they haven't all told you because you haven't spoken with or heard from all of them.

...and maybe you didn't ask, because:

I have little interest in knowing and it makes little difference. — Sir2u

:D

Michael Ossipoff

7 Th

”There's such a thing as proof in logic and mathematics. ...and questionably in matters of physics. But not as regards ultimate reality or Reality as a whole. So it's silly to want proof of God, for example.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
So if I believe that killing my neighbor is a good thing. Because I cannot prove this to be true its silly not to kill my neighbor?

.
No, I said only that there isn’t such a thing as proof in matters of Ultimate-Reality, Reality as a whole, all of what-is, or God.
.
Proof is for verbal subjects, such as the logically-interdependent things and events. You can’t show that words and verbal arguments apply to Reality. That’s all I meant.
.

If you get caught up in a murder, it is silly to try and rationally explain your innocence?
The judge say you cannot use math and logic in order to prove why you are the wrong man?
.
Do you mean that we cannot prove or rationally explain anything in this world, that science haven't proven anything at all, that the technology that enables your quality of life came out of a fluke luck of the developers of the tech?

.
No, of course not. I neither said nor meant any such thing. Logic, mathematics and science are of course valid and useful within their legitimate range of applicability. …the logically-interdependent things, but not Reality itself (…or at least you can’t prove otherwise.)
.

”Evidence needn't be proof. Evidence consists of some reason to believe something. There can be evidence on both sides of a y/n question. You may have your reason to believe that someone else's belief is correct. Without knowing all Theists, and all of their beliefs, and all of their evidence for their beliefs, you can't validly evaluate their evidence.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
The premise you are answering on is about Kierkegaard and Pascal's arguments for reasons to have faith without any care for evidence that it is true or rational. So I'm not sure what your answer is referring to here?

.
You spoke of belief without evidence. So I pointed out that you don’t know that all Theism is without evidence, because you don’t know all Theists, their beliefs, and what they regard as evidence for their beliefs. Remember that evidence needn’t be proof, but is merely an indication that is taken by some (but not necessarily by others) as reason to believe something.
.
So my reply was a direct answer to what you’d said.
.
Quite aside from that, faith isn’t about evidence, and neither do you know what every Theist’s justification for faith is. For the many diverse Theists, there is evidence &/or faith.
.
Is some it valid or justified? Because you haven’t spoken to all Theists, then I suggest that you take the suggestion of Dunning and Kruger, and just admit “I don’t know.” There’s nothing wrong with admitting that, instead of attacking what you don’t know about.
.
You could say “I don’t know of evidence, or of reason for faith, for Theists’ beliefs.”, and that would probably be a reliably correct statement.
.

”Then Russell was all confused. Religious faith is about the larger matter of what-is, Reality as a whole, ultimate reality. The matter of what there is in space is an entirely different sort of matter, a physical matter subject to such considerations of logic, mathematics, and the standards of science.” — Michael Ossipoff
This has nothing to do with the nature of belief and the ethics of it.

How right you are!
.
I wasn’t interested in the ethics. You stated some Atheist premises, and you told why you think that certain moral/ethical conclusions follow from them.
.
I wasn’t interested in the moral/ethical conclusions, but I commented on your Atheist premises.
.
However, because your premises are questionable, then of course that casts doubt on your conclusions.
.
So yes, in that way, what I said bears on moral/ethical conclusions.
.

So I don't see what this is a counter-argument to?

.
Your conclusion drawn from faulty premises is dubious.
.

I take it you are unfamiliar with Russell? He's being falsifiability, you know, the most important tool for doing science without bias.

.
That’s wonderful. Falsifiability is a good standard in science and the metaphysics of logically-interdependent things. …as is parsimony and the avoidance of unnecessary brute-facts.
.
Materialism doesn’t do so well by those standards, but that’s a topic for a different thread.
.

”7 W (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)

.
...Wednesday of the 7th week of the calendar year that started with the Monday that started closest to the South-Solstice of Gregorian 2017.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
What does this have to do with anything?

.
It has to do with when I posted that message.
.
But, 3 minutes after I posted the passage that you quoted above, I corrected it by removing the words “…of Gregorian 2017”.
.
So, it should read (as it does in the current corrected version):
.
“…Wednesday of the 7th week of the calendar year that started with the Monday that started closest to the South-Solstice.”
.
The added phrase “…of Gregorian 2017” is part of another, different, version of that year-start rule, a somewhat wordier arithmetical version that I don’t bring up when brevity is needed, as in the brief explanation of a signature-date.
.
Michael Ossipoff
.
7 Th


.

No argument has ever been able to prove the existence of God or gods through evidence. — Christoffer

There's such a thing as proof in logic and mathematics. ...and questionably in matters of physics. But not as regards ultimate reality or Reality as a whole. So it's silly to want proof of God, for example.

Going by Kirkegaard or Pascal, you might reject evidence in favor of the act of belief

Evidence needn't be proof. Evidence consists of some reason to believe something. There can be evidence on both sides of a y/n question. You may have your reason to believe that someone else's belief is correct. Without knowing all Theists, and all of their beliefs, and all of their evidence for their beliefs, you can't validly evaluate their evidence.

Russel's Teapot analogy points out that if you reject evidence and go by faith alone it could lead to being made up by anything you can think of; like Teapots in space and as a result, things like "the church of Teapotism” that revolves entirely around the belief of Teapots in space.

Then Russel was all confused. Religious faith is about the larger matter of what-is, Reality as a whole, ultimate reality. The matter of what there is in space is an entirely different sort of matter, a physical matter subject to such considerations of logic, mathematics, and the standards of science.

By Russel’s analogy, religion can be made into whatever people can think of, then people with dark thoughts and ideas can create beliefs around pain, suffering, murder and hate.

See above.

Michael Ossipoff

7 W (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)

...Wednesday of the 7th week of the calendar year that started with the Monday that started closest to the South-Solstice..

But what, in particular, is this truth that Sir2u has, that (at least some) people don't like?

Michael Ossipoff

7 Tu

Lots of people are not fond of the truth — Sir2u

Go forth and preach the truth to the multitudes!

You see, Sir2u has the truth. And he doesn't have any beliefs.

Michael Ossipoff

7 Tu

How would you define Aggressive Atheists? I always considered then to be the ones that go around preaching to others that their way is best. I really don't like them much either, they are no better that any other religion trying to get converts. — Sir2u

Well-said. But you should resist the inclination to mock beliefs different from your own.

Just briefly, remember that you don't know all the Theists or the beliefs of all Theists, or the evidence for their beliefs. ....or their reasons for faith (belief without evidence). ...but remember that evidence needn't be proof, and that there's no such thing as proof, or valid assertion, in the matter of Reality as a whole. (...as opposed to the logically-interdependent things.)

What? That's their fault, because they haven't all told you? Irrelevant. Whatever is the reason why don't know the beliefs, evidence, and reasons for faith, of all Theists, the fact remains that you don't know those things.

What you do know, and should feel free to say, is that you don't know of evidence for, or reason for faith about, what someone else believes. Saying that, vs saying that there's no evidence, or no reason for faith--Those are two different kinds of statements.

A little humility and modesty would be good, and that's something missing from our aggressive-Atheist brothers.

This is just a quick preliminary reply, and, if I've left out anything that I meant to say, I'll add it later today, or tomorrow.

But I like your last paragraph, quoted above.

Michael Ossipoff

7 M

I was very angry and despised theists when I was an atheist, too. It’s a very dark and proud place to be. — Noah Te Stroete

There's nothing to despise about Atheists, per se. In fact, some of my favorite people are Atheists.

But yes, aggressive Atheists are undeniably tiresome. I don't find a significant difference between them and the arrogant Mormons who come to my door.

I wouldn't despise someone just because they're tiresome. If you despised Atheists, you were merely giving them more attention than they deserve.

Aggressive Atheists are best ignored. There's really no other worthwhile response to them.

Your current attitude to ignore them makes sense. I no longer waste any time replying to them.

6 Su

Michael Ossipoff

Sir2u said:

You are blessed brother for admitting your sins, all is forgiven.

Go in peace.

Sir2u, at these forums, has a history of attacking religion and arguing for Atheism, and the above-quoted passage is just another such attack. ...but, this time, taking the form of mocking.

Maybe Sir2u wants to show that there's no bottom-limit to his conduct.

We are nearly all in the same boat, so don't sweat it too much.

Not many would get in Sir2u's boat.

Michael Ossipoff

6 Su (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)

...Sunday of the 6th week of the calendar-year that started with the Monday that started nearest to the South-Solstice.

sdom throughout his long life. However, the Venus project is just utter nonsense for one single reason. People will never ever change, as egalitarian and peaceful the society would not be, there will always be someone who will want more than others and that will ruin the system altogether. It is simply impossible to structure such a society — Proliferator

Correct.

Michael Ossipoff

6 Su (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)

...Sunday of the 6th week of the calendar-year that started with the Monday that started closest to the South-Solstice

I don't see what the problem is, if "Good" means "Favorable to living-things from their points-of-view".

The notion of "Omnipotence" is problematic, bringing paradox.

Would it be possible to make there be a logical proposition that's true-and-false?

Would it be possible to make there be two mutually-contradictory facts?

6 Su (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)

...Sunday of the 6th week of the calendar year that started with the Monday that started nearest to the South-solstice.

Michael Ossipoff

Some decades ago, after a breakup, I too was at a loss about what I liked, and so I devoted myself to study related to courses I’d been taking. I chose study that seemed most likely to be of practical interest when I later resumed courses. Of course a subject that I’d been studying was something that I liked, or I wouldn’t have been studying it. Of course there are various things that we like or could like.
.
If, at some time, you seem to not like anything, that’s “depression”, which they say can be detrimental and should be remedied, by a choice of some pursuit known to be (at least previously) of interest to you, or practical to you. …&/or maybe, as a last resort, brief judicious minimal use of an anti-depression drug.
.
As for the fitness-work, I think that sticking with a demanding dietary &/or exercise regime depends on things being alright, and free of unnecessary stress, in other aspects of one’s life. I once was on a good, but demanding, high whole-complex-carbs/low-fat, low-sugar diet, but the exasperation of unreasonably long phonecalls with my girlfriend at the time resulted in going off the diet, and resuming candy and junkfood consumption.
.
An adverse outcome or disappointment sometimes brings-up the question: “Why did this life have to start?”, but I think it’s a relief that my birth, and my birth in this world in particular, was just an inevitability that isn’t and wasn’t my fault or anyone else’s.
.
…and that this life is: 1) temporary; and 2) only questionably real in larger context. (…especially given the metaphysical undefinedness of “real”)
.
I wouldn’t say that Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism is contrary to the Nihilist position that life doesn’t have purpose or meaning, but it doesn’t support a negative value-judgment about that.
.
Buddhist writers have said some interesting things.
.
When a situation has been dealt-with, it has thereby been nullified. (Of course, often merely deciding about the matter is sufficient “dealing-with” for the time-being.)
.
Nihilists, Absurdists and Anti-Natalists often point out that birth isn’t necessary. But if that’s right, then how could there really be genuine needs in this life? We don’t really have genuine needs. Only likes. …going back to what I said about “Lila”.
.
I suggest that there isn’t “free-will”, and that “our” choices are decided for us by 1) Our preferences (innate or acquired); and 2) Our surroundings. That relieves us of the burden of “our” choices. Our role is merely to make a best-guess regarding which choice is most in keeping with our preferences and surroundings.
.
A Roomba, a purposefully-responsive device like us, doesn’t have needs, and isn’t bothered by dilemmas. Maybe there are things that we can learn from Roomba.
.
Michael Ossipoff

6 Sa

Edward--

This is just a brief preliminary reply, because I wanted to answer immediately about a few topics.

I emphasize that, when I spoke of angering Materialists, I didn't mean you. I've been debating with Materialists here for a long time, and a lot of them tend to get angry during the discussions. But I wasn't referring to you, and I don't even really know if you're a Materialist.

So that remark wasn't about you at all, but was about my previous experience in these forums.
-------------------------------------
About Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism:

First, it's sometimes said that here are 3 main categories for ontologies or metaphysicses:

1. Materialism (sometimes called "Physicalism")
2. Idealism
3. Dualism

As an offhand quote of the dictionaries, they tend to define Materialism as the belief or position that this physical universe is all of reality. ...that this physical universe is the ground-of-all-being. ...that anything that there is, consists of this physical universe, its things, and maybe including (according to some, ut not all Materialists) things that "supervene" on it, like consciousness.

Idealism is the position that the things of our logically-interdependent realm, including this physical world, have a nonphysical origin.

My Idealism is only about the things of the logically-interdependent realm, and doesn't apply to Reality itself.

Dualists believe that the material things are objectively real and existent, independently in their own right, but that nonmaterial things, too, have just as much reality and existence status, independent of matter. They believe in both.

"Ontic Structual" refers to a position that says that structure is all that there is in the logically-interdependent realm. Physicist Michael Faraday was maybe the 1st Westerner to express that position, in 1844.

He said that logical and mathematical relational structure is all that there is in the logically-interdependent realm (but that's my term, and he probably didn't use it). He said that there's no reason to believe in the supposed objective existence of the "stuff" of the physical world.

Tegmark is said to be an Ontic Stlructural Realist. Subjectivism ("Anti-Realism") is the opposite of Realism (at least as I mean "Subjectivism")

Tegmark's Realism is exemplified by his saying that his first principle is the External Reality Hypothesis. Realism says that in the logically interdependent realm, what-is is not centered on the individual, but is something really out there, and not dependent on, or about, us.

Subjectivism defines the logically-interdependent realm in terms of an individual's experience, with that experience being primary in the logically-interdependent realm.

So Tegmarks Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) is Ontic Structural Realism, whereas I instead subscribe to Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism.

The kitchen timer has sounded, telling me that it's dinner-time, and so this is just a preliminary reply. More tomorrow.

Michael Ossipoff

6 Sa

Well, there are things that people like. What more purpose or meaning than that is needed? That’s really all it comes down to.
.
When, in some way or at some time, things haven’t gone so well, or aren’t going so well, there’s a tendency for negative feelings about life. Buddhists seem to imply that those negative feelings don’t stand up to examination, and I agree.
.
My early life didn’t go well at all. We’re born into a societal world where, from the start, our lives are governed by self-interested, problem-ridden people—parents, school, and society-overall. …unfavorable conditions for the survival of life just starting-out.
.
So how and why did that happen? I didn’t ask to be born—especially into a societal-world like this one. It wasn’t my fault. Whom can I blame it on? No one. But a good thing is that I needn’t blame it on myself either.
.
(Though most Nihilists, Absurdists and Anti-Natalists are Materialists, and I’m instead an Ontic Structural Subjective Idealist, most of what I’m saying is independent of one’s metaphysics, though I might understandably say it in terms of my own metaphysics.)
.
Why and how did it happen? If you’re a Materialist, starting from the brute-fact of a fundamentally-existent physical world, then it’s inevitable that that physical world will follow its own laws, and obviously that included you and your life. For me, we and our lives are inevitable too, but for a different reason that we needn’t go into if you aren’t into metaphysics.
.
The point is that it was inevitable. That’s the answer to “Why did it happen?” …though the details of the “How did it happen?” will differ a bit depending on one’s metaphysics.
.
As an inevitability, it wasn’t anyone’s fault or anyone’s doing. Literally.
.
Again, the “how” depends on your metaphysics, but whether you’re a Materialist or an OnticStuctural Subjective Idealist, we and our lives were inevitable, and not anyone’s doing or fault.
.
Given that: What to do?
.
Well, there are things that we like. This life is temporary, and while we’re here, while it lasts, there are things we like. Hindus speak of life as play (“Lila”). What more purpose or meaning is needed?
.
What after? Whether or not you believe in reincarnation--one life or a finite sequence of lives--life eventually ends with sleep.
.
Barbara Ehrenreich pointed out that death doesn’t interrupt life—Life (temporarily) interrupts sleep.
.
Sleep is the natural, normal, usual and rightful state of affairs.
.
It’s life that’s the exception and interruption.
.
Mark Twain said something like:
.
“I was dead for millions of years before I was born, and it didn’t inconvenience me a bit.”
.

Ask yourself, what would have changed if you would not exist on Earth, (No offense intended, nor was targeted at you specifically) that's right, not a thing would have changed. Admit it.

.
Well, if I hadn’t been born there’d have been a little less for Materialists at this forum to be angry at.
.

I do not really see the purpose of life.

]
.
Of course. There isn’t one.
.

I just do not see the purpose of acquiring the positivity, therefore I am not even capable of sharing the positive.

.
Well, where there’s life, there’s positivity or negativity. I say that negativity doesn’t stand up to examination, and so there’s positivity. …even in the absence of meaning, purpose or reason for us, our lives and this physical world “existing” (whatever that word is supposed to mean).
.
By the way, not really off the subject, Nisargadatta said that, from the point-of-view of the sage, nothing has ever happened. In metaphysical discussions here, I’ve often emphasized that I don’t claim that anything in this realm of logically-interdependent things “exists” or is “real” (whatever that would mean). In fact, the words “exist” and “real” aren’t even metaphysically defined…putting the lie to any supposedly firm, concrete metaphysics that makes claims about what is “real” or “existent”. I suggest that we tend to believe too much in our metaphysics.
.
Michael Ossipoff
.
6 F

I don't understand where you or other Nihilists, Absurdists and Existentialists get the notion that you need, or that there should be, or we should expect, a purpose or meaning to life.

Or does being a Nihilist mean that you acknowledge that there isn't and needn't be meaning or purpose to life? The dictionary seems to say that philosophical Nihilists say that there isn't such meaning or purpose, and the dictionary strongly implies that Nihilists feel that that's a bad thing.

If that's what Nihilists say, then you're right that there isn't purpose or meaning to life, but you're wrong if you think that that's a bad thing.

Michael Ossipoff

6 F (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)

...Friday of the 6th week of the calendar-year that started with the Monday that started closest to the South-Solstice.

Most of the time, I don't even understand what people say.

Good. If you thought that you knew what they mean, then I'd worry about you.

So I really don't see me getting much out of this forum. — Purple Pond

Of course.

Michael Ossipoff

6 Th (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)

...Thursday of the 6th week of a calendar-year that started with the Monday that started closest to the South-Solstice.

You already now know that the attitude is important, and living with consideration for other people and all living-things.

Of course we regret for the people who didn't wise-up as you have.

Michael Ossipoff

I've been struggling for many years with thoughts about suicide, but my case is peculiar in that I desperately want to live. I realize that if we take a literalist conception of non-existence seriously, then non-existence can't be better, — simmerdown

There won't be any nonexistence. If that's your goal with suicide, forget it.

You'll never experience a time when you aren't. There'll be ever-deepening sleep, and its starting-character (but you don't know how long that will seem like) will be heavily adversely influenced by you in a suicide.

(...but physically-medically-necessary self-deliverance isn't suicide.)

...yet no point in living.

Life doesn't and needn't have a point. Without starting a metaphysical issue, your life is just a fact to be dealt-with. You didn't consciously choose it, but that's now beside the point.

...sufficient enough argument to justify continued existence.

As I said, even at death, nonexistence will never arrive, and is a false-hope.

I think what keeps me alive is my irrational survival instinct and the possibility that there might be something after death (e.g., afterlife, reincarnation, etc.).

Of course existence and experience don't end at death. I suggest that there's (probably for most people) reincarnation, but we needn't agree on that, and the first sentence of this paragraph doesn't depend on reincarnation.

What kept me alive in highschool was the fact that I didn't want an uncomfortable death, or the risk of being "rescued" with non-fatal damage.

...but also uncertainly about what would come next.

However it happened (I suggest that we and our lives are an inevitable part of an inevitably spontaneous abstract logical-system that we might as well just accept), of course you're here, and there isn't and needn't be a point to iife. So just enjoy it while it lasts (and it's temporary). There are things that you like.

Michael Ossipoff
6 W (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)

(...Wednesday of week 6 of the calendar-year starting with the Monday starting closest to the South-Solstice)

And, by the way, humans will probably be extinct within a century or two, due to such things as human-caused global-warming.

Suggesting that we'll be around till a nova occurs, or even until universe heat-death is way optimistic.

Michael Ossipoff

What makes you think that life needs to have "meaning"? Only philosophers think so.

Presumably there are things that you like. What more meaning do you need?

Alright yes, there's also the matter of consideration for the lives of other humans and other beings.

But that arises from and is consequent to, likes. ...In other words, at the basis of all that, is just the matter of things that we like.

Don't expect meaning other than that.

Michael Ossipoff

2019-W04-2 (South-Solstice WeekDate)
January 15th (Roman-Gregsorian)
Month 1, Week 4, Tuesday (South-Solstice Equal 28-Day Months Calendar)

”I’ve been saying those things [about reincarnation] since my arrival at The Philosophy Forum.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Well you haven’t said them here lol.

.
You’re right: I hadn’t said them in this thread before I said them in this thread LOL :D
.

And looking into the comment history of everyone I meet is creepy and time consuming

.
Then maybe it would be better if you didn’t assert about posting-histories.
.

”…though I never claimed proof that there’s reincarnation “— Michael Ossipoff
.
Why were you stating it as fact then?

.
What I said was that it plausibly follows from my metaphysics.
.
Fact? It probably is. …though I can’t prove it.
.

”No pain whatsoever for anyone is a big, big thing to postulate for physical beings in a physical world operating by its own physical law, where the physical perception of an immediate &/or urgent need to avoid serious injury is called “pain”.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Imagine a world where a planet where particles accidemtally collided together forming a utopian planet where everything has a marshmallow like texture so that even if you fall you just bounce back and can’t hurt yourself even if you tried. Now imagine those particles collided also forming 2 humans that just happen to both not have the ability to feel pain.

.
:D
.
Living things can be expected to likely depend on various physical conditions obtaining, and various things not happening, and various other things happening. A physical world operates by its physical laws.
.
Your world of never any harm, misfortune or pain for any of its living-things doesn’t sound very plausible.
.
But your beliefs are your business. I’m just saying that I don’t share that one.
.
Almost surely there are, in other possibility-worlds, better societal worlds than that of this planet
.

If you’re still not convinced a world without suffering is possible you must at least be convinced that a world with less suffering than this one is possible.

.
Of course.
.

And besides according to your position you shouldn’t be an antinatlist.

.
I address that statement farther below.
.

Because no matter what you do you’re not actually preventing people from being born. A person will ALWAYS be born into whatever world best fits “them”

.
Yes, as required by consistency of experience, if the subconscious predispositions that are the basis of this life remain at the end of this life, then there will be a next life in a world consistent with the person you are.
.
And yes, your parents have nothing to do with it.
.
If your practice contraception, you aren’t preventing anyone from being born.
.

(although you don’t hhave proof that changes to their subconscious self remain after life

.
I answered that in a recent previous reply. Maybe even the one that you’re “replying” to here. No, I’m not going to repeat that answer. I refer you to the recent previous reply in which I answered that claim of yours.
.

and you still have no proof that moral GOODNESS brings you to better worlds.

.
That’s your wording. I didn’t say that. I said that, due to the requirement for consistency of experience (because there are no mutually-inconsistent facts), your next world will be one that is consistent with there being someone like you…a world inhabited by the kind of people who would beget someone like you.
.
But I’ve answered about that too, and so, again, I refer you to my recent previous replies.
.

You know the saying nice guys finish last right? What if being good actually made you susceptible to getting born into WORSE realities.

.
Say you’re a really awful person. Most likely you were begotten by similarly awful people. Then what kind of people are likely to populate a world in which you’re born? What kind of a world is that likely to be?
.
But see above. I refer you to my recent previous replies.
.
Anyway, you’re of course entitled to your beliefs. It’s just that I don’t share them.
.

You haven’t explained how this “affinity” between person and world is decided).

.
See directly above.
.
We can agree to disagree about that claim.
.
And I refer you to my recent previous replies.
.
I have no objection to discussing, or answering questions about, reincarnation. But if you’re going to pursue that issue here then you shouldn’t object to it.
.
The points that I’ve been making here don’t depend on the matter of whether we have one life or many.
.

Since a person will always be born into whichever world fits them our decision to procreate or not procreate is completely inconsequential.

.
Correct.
.

If we DO antinatalist ourselves into extinction…. we didn’t save anyone from anything.

.
Correct.
.
Now, above, you said:
.

according to your position you shouldn’t be an antinatlist.

.
I’ve clarified many times that I support Antinatalism because:
.
1. It’s undesirable to be part of the proximal physical mechanism of the start of a life in this societal world.
.
2. This world is already overcrowded, and so it’s undesirable to make it more crowded.
.
Neither of those reasons requires agreeing with your philosophical claims.
.

”Actually, Ontic-Structural Subjective Idealism makes no assumptions or presumptions whatsoever, and posits no brute-facts (…unlike Materialism.)” — Michael Ossipoff
.

Your version does. You assume people go to better worlds if they do moral deeds. You assume people’s subconscious changes remain after death and that they get reborn into a different life as a consequence.

.
A hint: When you quote someone, limit yourself to things that they actually said.
.

You assume people’s subconscious changes remain after death

.
I’ve answered that, and I don’t have time to keep answering it. But I’ll say again (for the last time) that I was speaking of the unconsciousness (absence of waking-consciousness) during death.
I wasn’t speaking of the time (experienced by your survivors but not by you) after your complete shutdown, For you, of course, there’s no such time.
.

and that they get reborn into a different life as a consequence.

.
As for reincarnation, I’ve already clarified more than once that it’s a plausible consequence of the metaphysics that I propose. It isn’t part of that metaphysics. It isn’t assumed by that metaphysics.
.
If you want to find assumptions or presumptions in my metaphysics, then look for them in my description or exposition of my metaphysics.
.

You assume “minds” exist

.
Nonsense. I’ve many times clarified that I make no claim about “existence” or “real-ness” (whatever that would mean) of any of the logically-interdependent things.
.

to have ideas to begin with for these minds to be born into a world consistent with their ideas.

.
I spoke of complex logical systems consisting of inter-referring abstract implications about propositions about hypothetical things. I didn’t claim that they “exist” or are “real” (whatrever that would mean).
.
Some of those systems can be called “experience-stories”, about the experience of a protagonist. That protagonist and hir (his/her) surroundings are the mutually-complementary components of that story.
.
It goes without sayings that the protagonist and hir physical world will be mutually consistent, because there are no mutually-inconsistent facts.
.
You’re debating metaphysics, when I’ve been avoiding that topic because I’ve been making points that are valid even under Materialism.
I’ve been avoiding the metaphysics issue because it’s more effective to say things that aren’t metaphysics-dependent, and are compatible with the whatever metaphysics you already believe in. Most Antinatalists are Materialists, and so it’s best to say things that are valid even under Materialism.
.

You assume our laws of logic are cross-universal and that an illogical universe with contradicting principles cannot exist.

.
I make no claims about the “existence” (whatever that would mean) of any of the logically-interdependent things.
If mutually-contradictory facts are important to you, then it isn’t for me to say that they shouldn’t be important to you. But they aren’t what I’m talking about. I’m not quite sure how a world based on mutually-contradictory facts, and propositions that are both true and false, would work—and neither are you. There isn’t evidence that the universe in which we live is one such.
.

All you know is that we cannot image such a universe. That’s not proof it cannot exist.

.
There’s no reason why you can’t speak of such things. I make no claims about the “existence” (whatever that would mean) of any of the logically-interdependent things.
.
If you want to say that worlds with mutually-inconsistent “facts” exist in some way (though neither of us knows what you mean by that), you’re free to speak of such things. It’s just that I’m not.
.

There is no such thing as an ideology that makes no assumptions.

.
Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism doesn’t make any assumptions.
.
.
I invited you to name one, and you named things that Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism doesn’t assume.
.

You can’t have a syllogism without premises.

.
You can have an abstract implication with a false antecedent, or with an antecedent about which you don’t claim truth or falsity.
.
I make no claim that any of the antecedents of any of the abstract implications that I speak of are true.
.
I have no objection to discussing or answering questions about metaphysics or about the metaphysics of Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism, but if you’re going to pursue that topic here then you shouldn’t object to it.
.
I no longer criticize philosophical Antinatalism (the belief that your parents are the reason why you’re in a life), because, in this Antinatalist topic, I want to say things that don’t depend on metaphysics. I want to say things that are just as valid for you if you’re a Materialist.
.

”The (Materialist) world that they believe in is indeed absurd.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Mind explaining how?

.
Materialism assumes a brute-fact, as an unfalsifiable proposition. That brute-fact is that this physical world comprises all of Reality. In fact--regarding the mere assumption that this physical world has some (unspecified) kind of absolute or objective existence or real-ness that isn’t had by the system of inter-referring abstract-implications that I speak of--That assumption is an unsupported, faith-based brute-fact too, and an unfalsifiable proposition.
.
Materialists claim to highly value science, and to be More-Scientific-Than-Thou, but their faith-based, unnecessary, unparsimonious brute-facts and unfalsifiable propositions are not the sort of things that are usually favored by science.
.
That qualifies as absurdity.
.

Also I’d rather we do metaphysics in a private chat rather than on this thread

.
1. Fine, but philosophical Antinatalism (which claims that your parents are the reason why you’re in a life) depends on a metaphysical belief. (But I no longer address that issue, because I want to say things that don’t depend on metaphysical issues.)
.
2. Then why are you persistently debating metaphysics and reincarnation in this thread?
.
I’d be glad to leave metaphysics and reincarnation out of this thread. But if you pursue those topics here, then I’ll reply to them here.

Michael Ossipoff
.
2019-W04-2 (South-Solstice WeekDate)
2019-W03-2 (ISO WeekDate Calendar)
January 15th (Roman-Gregorian Calendar)
January 16th (Hanke-Henry Calendar)
Late-South Week 4 Tuesday (6-Season -3 wk Offset Calendar)
Month 1 Week 4 Tuesday (South-Solstice Equal 28-Day Months Calendar)
25 Nivose (Snowy) CCXXVII (French Republican Calendar of 1792)
.
Michael Ossipoff

”What? Things that we like are an opportunity, not something compelled on us. That's how everyone but a very few Antinatalists and Absurdists view it.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
That’s how most absurdists view it actually.

.
When I said “a very few Antinatalists and Absurdists”, I didn’t mean “a small percentage of the Antinatalists and Absurdists”. I meant that the Antinatalists and Absurdists are very few.
.

Not having free will is the state of the world for us.

.
Of course. If that were Antinatalists’ and Absudists’ only contention, then I wouldn’t disagree with them.
.

”It's meaningless to speak of that situation as something that has been done to some pre-existing someone.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
No one does that. I found andrew’s analogy most fitting. Setting a bear trap in an empty park is still wrong despite the fact that there is no one there yet. The point is that setting the bear trap WILL harm someone. Doesn’t matter if that person doesn’t exist yet.

.
Undeniably.
.
Under Materialism, that analogy holds up, to some extent at least. By my metaphysics, it doesn’t work, because you’re the reason for your parents, not vice-versa. But I’ve not been saying that lately, because I feel that it’s more effective to talk to Antinatalists and Absurdists in terms of their own metaphysics. So I’ve lately only been saying things here that are true even under Materialism.
.
Your parents are the proximal physical cause of the fact that there’s you. Under Materialism, that’s the whole reason why there’s you. …entitling you to blame them.
.
Fine, they’re culpable, even with Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism, because they made themselves part of your being in a world like this one. (…and maybe because of being unqualified for parenting too.)
.
So, we don’t disagree about parents’ culpability.
.
But evidently we disagree about the importance now, of that culpability. Yes they’re culpable, but so what?
.
“So don’t repeat their wrongdoing”? Fine. I agree with that too. I wouldn’t want to be part of the proximal physical mechanism of someone coming into being in a world like this. Nor would I want to add to the world’s already excessive population, and its consequent problems. …nor would I encourage others to do those things.
.
So we agree on the bottom-line main-issues of Antinatalism. …just not on Antinatalists’, Schopenhaurists’ and Absurdists’ irrational life-rejection. …in other words, I disagree with their attitude toward this life…which is an issue of theirs that’s different from and more than their exhortation to not reproduce.
.
So I don’t disagree with Antinatalism itself. I only disagree with the “philosophical-pessimism”, and specifically the bad-attitude toward and rejection of this life that Antinatalists unnecessarily tack onto Antinatalism, as if it were an essential part of Antinatalism.
.
And I only express that disagreement because I’m genuinely trying to be helpful.
.
But it doesn’t seem to be doing any good, and so there isn’t any reason for me to join future Antinatalist or philosophical-pessimism discussions.
.
Michael Ossipoff
.
2019-W04-2 (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)
2019-W03-2 (ISO WeekDate Calendar)
January 15th (Roman-Gregorian Calendar)
January 16th (Hanke-Henry Calendar)
Late-South Week 4 Tuesday (6-Season -3 wk Offset Calendar)
Month 1 Week 4 Tuesday (South-Solstice Equal 28-Day Months Calendar)
25 Nivose (Snowy) CCXXVII (French Republican Calendar of 1792)

”Then what is the point of railing at that obvious inevitability?? In fact what even is the meaning of that railing?” — Michael Ossipoff
.
It’s not an inevitability.

.
Even under Materialism, it’s inevitable that you’re in a life, because, as I said in my other reply today, for it to even be meaningful to speak of “You” at all, you’re in a life.
.
“You” and “in a life” are inevitably inseparable.
.

It might convince others not to have children (deterministically of course) and then eventually maybe an anti-reproduction policy can be implemented.

.
That could conceivably happen on this planet, in this possibility-world. That would be good, because the human population is suboptimally-high.
.
Of course, if Antinatalism became international official policy, abided-by by everyone, then the human species would become extinct within one human lifetime.
.
There’s nothing wrong with extinction. I don’t disagree with you about that. There’s no need for a species to be, and, as you might have heard in the news, the other species on this planet wouldn’t have good reason to miss us.
.
Yes, the Norway Rats, the House-Mice and the Cockroaches would soon follow us into extinction, because our dwellings are their niche. But the rest of Earth’s life would do just fine without us. Sorry, I didn’t mean to hurt our pride.
.
Humans—the great experiment. In the distant past, a pig and a chimpanzee had a romantic tryst, or at least a date. …and now here we are.
.
…until we make ourselves extinct. (We won’t do that by Antinatalist contraception or celibacy. We’ll do it by global-warming due to unabated CO2 and methane emissions.)
.
Of course Antinatalist contraceptive extinction will never happen, for a number of reasons.
.
1. For one thing, there’s a strong reproductive instinct, for all animals, including humans. Therefore, Antinatalists will always remain a small minority.
.
2. For another thing, rulers need workers (at least until workers are replaced by robots). So there will never be an official Antinatalist policy (…at least not until the necessary robots are available). Of course this reason #2 is secondary to reason #1--The rulers, like everyone else, want to have a family future due to reason #1.
.

The antinatilists might succeed in their quest you never know.

.
They won’t, for the reasons stated above. But don’t worry: Our CO2 & methane fueled global-warming will achieve your goal of human extinction.
.
Will the global-warming extinctions stop when we’re extinct, or will a vicious positive-feedback cycle tipping-point have been passed by that point, eventually turning Earth into a lifeless Venus? I don’t know the subject well enough to even guess, but I’ve heard both opinions.
.
Michael Ossipoff
.
2019-W04-1 (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)
2019-W03-1 (ISO WeekDate Calendar)
January 14th (Roman-Gregorian Calendar)
January 15th (Hanke-Henry Calendar)
Late-South Week 4 Monday (6-Season -3 wk Offset Calendar)
Month 1 Week 4 Monday (South-Solstice Equal 28-Day Months Calendar)
24 Nivose (Snowy) CCXXVII (French Republican Calendar of 1792)

Reality isn't material.

(...except to a Materialist.)

Michael Ossipoff

2019-W04-1 (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)
Month 1 Week 4 Monday (South-Solstice Equal 28-Day Months Calendar)
January 14th (Roman-Gregorian Calendar)
January 15th (Hanke-Henry Calendar)
24 Nivose (Snowy) CCXXVII (French Republican Calendar of 1792)

”But if there's no need for life, then why does Schopenhauer1 think that there's need for things in life?” — Michael Ossipoff
.
He means that a non existent thing (an unborn baby) doesn’t need anything including life

.
No argument there. A nonexistent thing wouldn’t need anything.
.
Need or absence of need can only be meaningfully spoken of in reference to someone who is. At the end-of-lives (or at the end of this life if there isn’t reincarnation), the person indeed doesn’t need life anymore, and eventually doesn’t know that there ever was, or even could be, such a thing.
.
But then, as you quoted me asking, if you didn’t need life in the first place, and didn’t need this life, then what makes you think that you need anything in this life?
.

…but when someone is born, they suddenly need things in life.

.
They think that they do. But obviously their need for things in this life can’t be any greater than their need for being in this life in the first place.
.

It’s better to be in a state of not needing anything and to be put in a state of needing something then acquiring it.

.
Yes, if you mean “seeming to need something”.
.
Let me repeat some quotes that I’ve been posting:
.
Barbara Ehrenreich said something to the effect that death doesn’t interrupt life. Life (temporarily) interrupts sleep.
.
Mark Twain said something like:
.
“Before I was born, I was dead for millions of years, and it didn’t inconvenience me a bit.”
.
So yes, sleep, such as the ever deepening sleep at the end-of-lives, is the natural, normal, usual and rightful state-of-affairs. You’re right about that.
.
…because it’s timeless, and because it’s the final state-of-affairs.
.
But, because of what I referred to immediately above, then what are you Antinatalists and Absurdists complaining about? Life is temporary, a brief blip in sleep and timelessness. So what’s to complain about???
.

Solving a problem you posed is not productive and it is immoral to force someone to solve a problem YOU POSE on them when they didn’t have to solve it before.

.
Again, you’re speaking from your Materialist belief, making metaphysical assertions. We needn’t bring metaphysics into this.
.
Anyway, even if you’re a Materialist, you and your life are inseparable, even in principle. It’s meaningless to speak of a “You” that never began a life.
.
Whatever you believe is the reason or origin of your life, it and you were always the two complementary parts of the same whole. …even under Materialism.
.
So, all this talk about being better off if you hadn’t been conceived is quite without meaning.
.
Michael Ossipoff
.
2019-W04-1 (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)

”They [parents] were just a cog in the mechanism of the physical world. You might as well blame our galaxy for your birth, or the Big-Bang. I'm not denying that your parents had a role, but not uniquely. You're giving them too much credit. — Michael Ossipoff
.
As a materialist I see blame and prosecution as an evolved mechanism for removing troublemakers and bolstering your chances of survival.
.

.
As a Christian, I see blame as ultimately irrelevant and counterproductive.
.
Especially since, as Nisargadatta pointed out, nothing has ever happened. …making it unnecessary to get all worked up over blame.
.
Were our parents culpable? Of course. So what. I bet my parents were worse than yours.
.
With blame, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
.

As a materialist that doesn’t believe in free will…

.
Though I’m not a Materialist, I don’t believe in free-will either. As I’ve said, much of my criticism of what is said by Antinatalists and Absurdists is just as valid for you if you’re a Materialist.
.

Now, that being said, in my view blaming your parents for your existence makes sense. You were evolved to undoubtably see them as the cause of your existence despite the fact that they had no choice but to have you. As such they are the cause of your existence.

.
You’re expressing your Materialism, but we should agree to disagree about metaphysics. These issues aren’t really metaphysical, since the relevant conclusions are really the same under Materialism or Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism. Yes your parents were the proximal physical cause of your conception and birth.
.

Same with how you say “the gunshot killed the man”. Of course, according to my view, the Big Bang killed the man but when people talk of “cause” they always mean their perception of who the biggest actor was as tuned by their evolution to remove troublemakers. And this is what materialists always mean by “cause”.

.
Is the criminal responsible for his crimes, or were his crimes the result of a combination of his genetic-heritage and his surroundings?
.
Answer: Both. He’s fully responsible for his crimes, which are also entirely the result of his genetic heritage and his surroundings, over which he had no choice or control.

This is my reply to the 2nd of your recent posts. The other replies will also be along soon.
.
Michael Ossipoff
.
2019-W04-1 (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)
2019-W03-1 (ISO WeekDate Calendar)
January 14th (Roman-Gregorian Calendar)
January 15th (Hanke-Henry Calendar)
Late-South Week 4 Monday (6-Season -3 wk Offset Calendar)
Month 1 Week 4 Monday (South-Solstice Equal 28-Day Months Calendar)
24 Nivose (Snowy) CCXXVII (French Republican Calendar of 1792)

”When wasn’t I [a Hindu]?” — Michael Ossipoff
.
You never ever implied that people get reborn NOR that where they get reborn is dictated by their morality.

.
I’ve been saying those things since my arrival at The Philosophy Forum.
.

Those are two MASSIVE speculations. Nothing in your framework says those have to be the case.

.
Incorrect. They plausibly, naturally, follow from my metaphysics, Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism.
.
…though I never claimed proof that there’s reincarnation.
.
If there’s a reason why you’re in a life, and if that reason remains at the end of this life, then what does that suggest?
.
Of course, if you’re a Materialist, then, by your metaphysics, the reason why you’re in a life is simply because your parents reproduced…a cause that obviously won’t remain at the end of this life.
.
Under Materialism, reincarnation is ruled-out.
.

”Your subconscious attributes, inclinations, wants, needs, predispositions at the end of this life determine what kind of a world is consistent with the person that you (subconsciously) are. Consistency is the requirement of experience-stories, because there are no mutually-inconsistent facts.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Who says those subconscious attributes remain after death?...That’s another massive speculation not substantiated by your own framework.

.
From the point of view of your survivors, when you’re dead, and the worms are eating your decayed body, neither you nor any of your attributes, subconscious or otherwise, remain.
.
But it was clear from what I said that I wasn’t talking about the time experienced by your survivors, when you’re dead, with your body’s shutdown complete.
.
I was referring to your experience, during the “unconsciousness” (absence of waking consciousness) that arrives during death.
.

I thought more along the lines of Nietzsche’s repeating lives in thus spoke Zarathustra

.
You’re welcome to that belief. But it’s yours, not mine.
.

”Not necessarily. I’d say probably not. A physical world is bound by logic, not made-to-order, and must operate according to its physical laws. So P2 is far from certain.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
It IS certain.

.
Your pain-free world—the notion that there could be such a world--is speculation.
.

What’s illogical about a world with no pain? Even if you think it’s not certain…

.
No pain whatsoever for anyone is a big, big thing to postulate for physical beings in a physical world operating by its own physical law, where the physical perception of an immediate &/or urgent need to avoid serious injury is called “pain”.
.
If you admit that it’s not certain, then you contradict your statement quoted above.
.

I’d say you can agree that it IS certain that there are worlds with less pain than this one.

.
Undeniably.
.

”No, not at all. I’ve given two good reasons for Antinatalism.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Ok then why did you reply to a post that was about finding arguments AGAINST antinatalism lol?

.
Because, though I agree with the undesirability of being part of the proximal cause of another life in this world, or of increasing the Earth’s human population, I nevertheless point out some errors of Antinatalists and Absurdists. …whose claims go beyond merely saying that it’s undesirable to be part of the proximal cause of another life in this world or increasing the Earth’s population.
.

Final note, I’m still in utter disagreement with your metaphysics

.
Of course. How could it be otherwise, with you being a Materialist?
.

…as it makes way too many presumptions for no reason

.
Actually, Ontic-Structural Subjective Idealism makes no assumptions or presumptions whatsoever, and posits no brute-facts (…unlike Materialism.)
.
You should feel free to share with us what assumption or presumption you think my metaphysics makes.
.
…but I emphasize that my criticism of the claims of Antinatalists and Absurdists is NOT a metaphysical issue, because, even under Materialism, there are good objections to various statements made by Antinatalists and Absurdists.
.
But, as I sometimes say, Absurdists are right about one thing:
.
The (Materialist) world that they believe in is indeed absurd.
.

…but this is not the thread for that.

.
Correct, because my criticisms of statements by Antinatalists and Absurdists are valid even under Materialism.
.
Replies to your other posts will be along soon, maybe all today, or maybe one or a few each day.
.
Michael Ossipoff
.
2019-W03-7 (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)
Late-South Week3 Sunday (6-Seasons -3 wk Offset Calendar)
January 13th (Roman-Gregorian)
January 14th (Hanke-Henry)
Month 1 Week3 Sunday (South-Solstice Equal 28-Day Months Calendar)
2019-W02-7 (ISO WeekDate Calendar)
23 Nivose (Snowy) CCXXVII (French Republican Calendar of 1792)

Yes, the Roman-Gregorian Calendar is a seasonal calendar, because the seasonal meanings of the months are familiar to us all, everyone everywhere.

For example, now, in early January, we all know that we're getting into the coldest part of Winter.

As you said, that seasonal meaning of dates would be lost if we changed to a different calendar.

It's true that, if we changed to South-Solstice WeekDate, then today's date of 2019-W02-7 would soon imply cold weather to people north of the equator. ...as would any week-number close to 1 or 52.

But the seasonal meaning of early January has been familiar to all, for over 2000 years, and
2019-W02-7 can't match that.

My drastic-departure seasonal calendar proposals...

South-Solstice WeekDate, 6-Seasons -3 wk Offset, and 6-Seasons 0 Offset...

...are intended for some hypothetical (almost surely fictitious) future time when people demand a complete break with the past ways of doing things.

And, if there were such a time, then by explicitly dividing the year into nominal-seasons, the 6-Season calendars would still say something about the season.

For example, today's 6-Seasons -3 wk Offset date is Late South, Week2, Sunday. The calendar year starts (near the South-Solstice) with Late-South, which, as its name implies, means that we're deep into the season resulting from extreme south solar-declination. Deep winter.

So, though 6-Seasons -3 wk Offset is a drastic departure, without the familiarity of Roman-Gregorian, its dates nonetheless say something about the season.

Practically no one wants a change in the calendar. I'm not pushing for it either. Roman-Gregorian is perfectly good.

I've been to Spain, and I liked it very much. It's the only continental European country I've ever been to.

Michael Ossipoff

January 6th (Roman-Gregorian)
January 7th (Hanke-Henry)
Late-South, Week2, Sunday (6-Seasons -3 wk Offset)
2019-W02-7 (South-Solstsice WeekDate)
2019-W01-7 (ISO WeekDate)
16 Nivose (Snowy) CCXXVII (French-Republican Calendar of 1792)

Ehlmann’s theory isn’t a new theory. For one thing, it was a theory that I considered when I was in highschool. It seemed plausible then. It doesn’t hold up under examination.
.
Yes, though your survivors will experience a time when there’s no you, you yourself will never experience a time when you aren’t. You won’t experience a time when there’s no experience.
.
What will you experience at the end-of-lives (or the end of this life if there isn’t reincarnation)?
.
Obviously, it will be sleep. …ever deepening sleep.
.
During that deepening of sleep, there will come a time when you don’t know that there ever was, or even could be, such things as worldly-life, a universe, identity, time, or events…or that there even could be such things.
.
…or such things as situations, problems, needs, wants, menaces, lack, or incompletion.
.
Yes, your body will be near to complete shutdown. But you won’t know or care about that, and it will be completely irrelevant, because, because, as I said, you won’t know that there is, was, or ever could be such a thing as time anyway. You’ll be in timelessness.
.
That final experience in deepening sleep could therefore be called timeless.
.
That ever-deepening deep sleep, because it’s timeless, and because it’s your final state-of-affairs, it can fairly be called the natural, normal, usual and rightful state-of-affairs.
.
As Barbara Ehrenreich pointed out, death doesn’t interrupt life. Life (briefly) interrupts sleep.
.
Mark Twain said something to the effect of:
.
“Before I was born, I was dead for millions of years, and it didn’t inconvenience me a bit.”
.
After the quote below, I comment inline, on some of the other things that you said.
.

I've been reading about a new theory from Dr. Bryan Ehlmann which supports a "natural afterlife." Basically, he suggests that if non-existence follows after death, then we will be forever locked in a state of experience comprising of our very last moment. He uses the following thought experiment:
.
"You’re totally engrossed in watching an extremely exhilarating movie. Then, without knowing, you unexpectedly, without any perceived drowsiness, fall asleep. For you the movie has been unknowingly paused, while in reality (that for others) it continues on. Until you wake up, you still believe you’re watching that movie."
.
He suggests that because we will never perceive any indication that our consciousness has ceased when we die, we will continue this final state of consciousness forever and that in this state, time will become infinite.

.
You said:
.

Some of my thoughts on the topic:
.
- There will no longer be a self to consciously experience this last moment, so how can it be that this moment will continue forever?

.
From the point of view of your survivors, there will come a time when you’re gone, when your body is completely shut down, and even when it is decayed and no longer exists. Obviously you never experience those times, and they’re quite irrelevant to you.
.
There’s no reason why a moment before loss of waking-consciousness would continue forever. In fact, it’s meaningless to speak of a moment continuing forever.

- How specific is this static moment? Is it an everlasting experience of the second before we die? A millisecond? This quickly becomes an irrational thing to discuss.

.
Yes, to say the least. That theory doesn’t make sense or hold up.
.

- What if we die in some horrible way and are suffering until our last moments? (e.g., burned alive, suffocation, etc.) If we take this theory seriously, then that provides some pretty daunting implications. An eternity of extreme pain locked into a single moment? Yikes.

.
That horrible death will eventually be overwith, replaced with an ever deepening deep sleep in which you won’t remember that death, or the things and events of our lives. … as I described at the beginning of this reply.
.

Overall, I don't know what to think about the plausibility of this theory.

.
As I said, it seemed plausible when I was in highschool, but it doesn’t hold up under examination.
.

It makes sense to me that without a transferred state to let me know that I am no longer conscious, then from my point of view, I won't know that my final moment of consciousness has ended.

.
As I said, there will come a time when you won’t know that there ever was or could be such things as worldly-life, a universe, events, or waking-consciousness.
.

But as mentioned, how can consciousness exist without an entity to experience it?

.
From your survivors’ point-of-view, after your death there will be neither you nor your consciousness.
.
Michael Ossipoff
.
2019-W02-6 (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)
2019-W01-6 (ISO WeekDate Calendar)
January 5th, (Roman-Gregorian Calendar)
January 6th (Hanke-Henry Calendar)
15 Nivose (Snowy) CCXXVII (French Republican Calendar of 1792)

My prediction is that none of these calendar proposals will be adopted and that next year we'll still be using the same sort of calendars we always have. — Hanover

Of course. That's obvious. Though pretty much all of the calendar-reform proposals bring some more convenience, and that's usually how they're justified, no one finds our current Roman-Gregorian Calendar inconvenient.

Our Roman-Gregorian Calendar is an idiosyncratic patchwork quilt, with months unchanged since Roman times. Some of the months are named for Roman deities, some are named for Roman emperors, and some are named for a numbering that no longer applies.

(September, October, November and December are named for being the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th months. But of course they're now the 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th months.)

Completely arbitrary and idiosyncratic.

But that's fine. There's nothing wrong with our Roman-Gregorian Calendar, and everyone is satisfied with it.

You're right. A new calendar won't be adopted. Calendar-reform is purely hypothetical topic. But what's wrong with hypothetical? This is a philosophy-forum, after all.

Anyway, descriptions of the orderly, minimal, calendar proposals serve as a foil, to display the endearingly picturesquely arbitrary and idiosyncratic Roman-Gregorian, and its beautifully completely unrelated and mutually-independent variations of year, month and week, in all of their natural haphazard constantly changing permutations.

There's been criticism of the lengths of the Roman months, and a claim that they need the rhyme "30 days hath September..." No, the Roman months alternate nearly perfectly between long and short months--the only exceptions being the 2 hottest months and the 2 coldest months as pairs of adjacent long months.

February? It uniquely has only 28 days (sometimes 29).. But why not? February _is_ unique, as the first month that shows signs of approaching spring.

Though there are alternative calendar proposals that are more seasonally-accurate than Roman-Gregorian, Roman-Gregorian is nonetheless accurate enough, whether judged by periodic cyclical seasonal displacement, or by long-term drift.

The Gregorian drift is un-problematic (probably un-noticeable) during a human lifetime.

No, I just mention alternative calendars because they're of some hypothetical interest.

Michael Ossipoff

2019-W02-6 (South-Solstice WeekDate)
2019-W01-6 (ISO WeekDate)
Late-South, Week2 Saturday (6-Seasons -3 wk Offset)
South, Week2, Saturday (6-Seasons 0 Offset)
January 5th (Roman-Gregorian)
January 6th (Hanke-Henry)
15 Nivose (Snowy) CCXXVII (French Republican Calendar of 1792)

I think that most antinatalists take issue with parents’ reasons or lack of reasons for having children.

.
So do I. But I don’t (retrospectively) expect much from my parents, and I’m (now) not surprised by their shortcomings. …though I was a bit surprised when I first realized about it.
.

Which then undermines the meaning making process for the individual. The irrationality of attitudes towards procreating and parenting then leads to fear and a sense of abandonment.

.
Of course. Abandonment is the name-of-the-game. Well, active-victimization is a better word.
.

My parents life meaning and my experiences and desires are seriously at odds.

.
Of course. Likewise for my parents, of course. They sure didn’t put me in the situation for my benefit, as is obvious from their parenting. Of course the same abandonment and hypocrisy is obvious regarding the schools and overall society, with regard to the children who are their victims.
.
In fact, of course “abandonment” is a euphemism and understatement for that victimization.
.

I would like to be optimistic for the future

.
There’s no cause for optimism for the societal future on this planet in this physical world.
.
As for our own individual futures, it’s just a matter of making the best of the situation that we’ve found ourselves in. …found ourselves in with complete bewilderment on the first day, and even for years later weren’t ready for dealing with, due to a societally and parentally taught maladaptive notion of who our life is for.
.
Michael Ossipoff

2019-W01-7 (South-Solstice WeekDate)
2019 Late-South, Week1, Sunday (6-Seasons -3 wk Offset)
2018 December 30th (Roman-Gregorian)

Alright, I was mistaken to believe that all Antinatalists are Materialists. I was basing that belief largely on Schopenhauer1's statements.

But, you not being a Materialist, and given the things that you said in your reply just before this message, then, if your physical world isn't necessarily metaphysically-prior to you, then doesn't that mean that Antinatalists are attributing unrealistically-much ontological-creative-power to their parents?

Anyway, much of what I was saying is true whether someone is a Materialist or an Ontic Structural Subjective Idealist. Only the underlying mechanics-explanation is different. The facts about our situation now are basically the same with either metaphysics.

Some Buddhists comment on such matters without mention of metaphysics. Much of what I've said, to cheer-up Antinatalists and existential-angst-ridden Absurdists, is independent of metaphysics.

There are things that you like, They're plainly what you're here for, even if you don't agree with me that they're actually why you're here.

That's the situation, whether or not the Material world is the Uncaused Cause and Ground of All Being.

...you being here, and there being things that you like.

Schope has said (..,if I understood him right) that we're forced to entertain ourselves. What? Things that we like are an opportunity, not something compelled on us. That's how everyone but a very few Antinatalists and Absurdists view it.

Whatever the reason why we're in a life, that's the situation, And sure, there are the hardships and risks that go with life. Again, we can agree to disagree about why we're in a life, but Antinatalists can't realistically deny that the person and hir (his/her) being in a life are a "sealed-unit" a "unitary-construction". ...an in-principle inseparable pair like the poles of a magnet or the sides of a paper.

,,,and that they're confronted with that as an accomplished-fact, even if we disagree about why that is.

There's no reason to believe that there's any such thing as waking-consciousness other than in a life.

Schope speaks of sleep, but there's no reason to believe that there's even such a thing as that except with respect to a current or just-ended life. Sleep is for born living-beings, during their life, or at their end-of-lives (which is at the end of this life if there's no reincarnation). So, even that end that some Antinatalists long for is only there as part of a life of a born bring,

Antinatalists embrace the sleep at the end of lives (or of this life), while rejecting the life that necessarily, unavoidably must precede it, It's well understood by Buddhists and Hindus that unrealistic rejection of how things are isn't going to bring satisfaction or contentment, As Rajneesh pointed out, your death won't be better than your life, One shouldn't expect an abrupt change at death, from unrest and rejection, to peace. Attitude counts, and that's a matter of life-completion and lifestyle-perfection.

The fact that you're in this life of vulnerability, varying degrees of hardship and suffering is just something that integrally goes with you. You and that situation are the sealed-unit, the unitary-construction, the inseprable complementary pair that I spoke of, You only are, in the context of that
situation. ...whether or not we agree on the reason for that situation.

It's meaningless to speak of that situation as something that has been done to some pre-existing someone. You made an analogy about life being something that is set-up to be done to someone who hasn't yet come into existence. But that analogy doesn't work, because it implies a separate being for the situation and the person subjected to it, A situation like that is necessarily integrally part of the complementary pair consisting of that person and hir world.

...whether you agree with my explanation for why there is that, or whether you believe that it's a result of a Material world that is the Ultimate-Reality.

It's a matter, now, of living with that situation, regardless of disagreements about why there's that situation. Sure, I didn't knowingly ask for this situation either, and I know just how Antinatalists feel, because I sometimes feel the same way.

But there are things that you like,

Michael Ossipoff

2019-W01-7 (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)
2019 Late-South Week 1 Sunday (6-Season -3 wk Offset Calendar)

I’m not posting to this Antinatalist issue just to be argumentative. If I just wanted to argue, I could argue with Atheists and Materialists, but I’m tired of that. I sometimes answer Antinatalists, precisely because what they’re saying is something that I can relate to, something that has often occurred to me as well.
.
Yes there’s something right about what they’re talking about, and their topic is worth comment. Yes, I didn’t consciously choose to be in a life...least of all one (seemingly) inexplicably sharing the world with violent or aggressive people with whom I have nothing in common.
.
Because Antinatalists are Materialists, comments that refer to a metaphysics different from theirs won’t be effective with them. But there are things that can be said that are true for Materialists too.
.
As a Materialist, you believe that you’re fundamentally a product and result of your physical world. But then how can you object to being in this world?? What else would you expect, given the belief that I quoted in this paragraph?
.
You seem to be objecting to the fact that there’s such a thing as life. To whom is that objection addressed? Not to God, because you’re an Atheist, though Antinatalists seem to be shaking their fist at the heavens. Atheists shakings their fist at the heavens.
.
Why has your material world made you be in a life? …which really means, why has this material world made there be life. Materialists deny that they’re religious, but their Material-World really, for them, stands-in for God. It’s there without explanation, as the Ground-of-All-Being, the Uncaused-Cause of everything.
.
(I’ve previously described, how, likewise, by Merriam-Webster’s and Simon-&-Schuster’s definitions, Materialism is indeed a religion.)
.
But the main point of this answer is what I said a few paragraphs back: If, as you believe, you’re a product and result of this material world, then, given that that’s what you are, then why are you surprised that you’re in a life in a world. …how could it have been otherwise? Is it even meaningful to speak of the possibility of it being otherwise, given that “You” is a meaningless notion without life in a world?
.
Then what is the point of railing at that obvious inevitability?? In fact what even is the meaning of that railing?
.
Given your beliefs, then, given that you’re here, wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to just accept the obviously inevitable situation and just do as you like (…which might include some you-intrinsic standards of right-living, but that’s another topic)?
.
Michael Ossipoff
.
2019-W01-5 (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)
.
2019, Late-South, Week 1, Friday (6-Season -3 wk Offset Calendar (where “South” refers to the 13-week terrestrial-season resulting from south solar-declination, roughly corresponding to December, January & February) )
.
2018 December 28th (Roman-Gregorian Calendar)

Year-divisions other than the week can’t be justified other than by their marking of the seasons.
.
Months as payment-periods? With WeekDate, make payments every 4th week, every week-number divisible by 4.
.
So I proposed South-Solstice WeekDate, and a calendar with nominal seasons
.
And I’ve referred to two previously-proposed seasonal calendars, one of which was actually adopted and used by a country, and I’ve cited their shortcomings, and showed how those shortcomings can be avoided.
.
The nominal seasons of 6-Seasons -3 wk Offset coincide closely with the seasons of experience, perception and wide consensus. …as I described in my previous post.
.
The Roman-Gregorian months can be called seasonal, because, with about 2000 years’ experience, everyone everywhere is familiar with what season, weather and temperature tend to arrive with each Roman month.
.
But I wanted an astronomical-terrestrial seasonal calendar, and a calendar for a hypothetical time when people want a complete departure from the past, and therefore don’t want to keep using the Roman months.
.
The proponents, at of 28,35,28 quarters have utterly failed to explain what their funny “months” are good for, or are supposed to mean, or why there’s any reason to name them after the Roman months, or why it’s desirable to start their “January” near that of Roman-Gregorian (…when the month-start times bear little resemblance to those of Roman-Gregorian).
.
By the way, as a possible justification for why some would want to say that Winter begins at the Winter-Solstice, I suggested that maybe some want to emphasize that the worst cold of Winter typically arrives after that time.
.
But, with 6-Season -3 wk Offset, the names for the parts of South before and after New-Year’s Day, “Early-South” and “Late-South”, also mark that distinction between Winter’s somewhat more modest early part, and its more severe later part.
.
By the way, I suggested that the nominal seasons be divided only by weeks, with no months. Though I prefer that, it remains true that, in the 6-Seasons versions with months, those months (contrary to what I said before) do express a measure of progress through the seasons.
.
So the 6-Seasons -3 wk Offset calendar that I proposed would be fine, with and without months. I like the simplicity without months, but some, not liking the number 13, might object to the fact that there’d be 13 numbered-weeks in the North Season.
.
As I said, the 6-Seasons -3 wk Offset calendar would be fine either with or without months.
.
2019-W1-5 (South-Solstice WeekDate)
2019 Late-South Week 1 Friday (6-Season -3 wk Offset)

Michael Ossipoff

no one needs anything to begin with if they don't exist in the first place to need it. — schopenhauer1

But if there's no need for life, then why does Schopenhauer1 think that there's need for things in life?

...if he says that life itself was and is unnecessary?

No one needs anything to begin with if they don't exist? It's meaningless to speak of needs of someone who isn't. Schopenhauer1's sentence doesn't really have a subject, and therefore doesn't have a meaning.

Another thing about "no one needs anything to begin with..."

...so Schpenhauer1 thinks that they "need" things now? He's spoken of a "need" to entertain oneself, to always instrumentally strive for entertainment. Yes, greed brings misery, but I suggest that that greed isn't necessary.

The regrettable situation that Schpenhauer1 (along with other Antinatalists and Absurdists) talks about is an attribute of some people. It isn't an attribute of the world.

A comment about Absurdism:

Absurdists are right to say that the Materialist world that they believe in is indeed absurd.

Michael Ossipoff

2019-W01-3 (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)

I think one of the problems with having children is that you can do it without any skill or qualification or planning or justification. — Andrew4Handel

it is absurd that anyone can have children without showing any capacity to rear a child — Andrew4Handel

Hear hear! Quite so!

In Europe and many other places the state will take someone's child from them if they consider them an unfit parent. — Andrew4Handel

...as they should.

In fact, there should be demanding requirements for qualification before someone is permitted to be a birth-parent or any other kind of parent. Who'd judge that qualification? I didn't say it was feasible in this Land-of-The Lost societal-world--only that it would be right, if feasible.

I'm qualified to comment about unqualified parents.

But it seems to me that it would be entirely meaningless to speak of "...if Mr, & Mrs. Ossipoff hadn't reproduced...." It's a nonsense clause, from my point of view. (...even if not from someone else's point of view.)

And for whom would it have been better?

Another thing: As a Materialist, you'll agree that your parents were biologically-originated purposefully-responsive devices. ...just parts of the physical universe. So where's the justification to attribute primary responsibility to them, to make them the cause, as if it all happened because of them?

They were just a cog in the mechanism of the physical world. You might as well blame our galaxy for your birth, or the Big-Bang. I'm not denying that your parents had a role, but not uniquely. You're giving them too much credit.

There were going to be parents for me, as an obvious requirement for my physical world, and they were going to be like they were, because, for some reason,. that's the world (including the parents) that was consistent with me.

I was the reason for the parents, not vice-versa.

December 25th (Roman-Gregorian calendar)
2019-W01-2 (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)

Michael Ossipoff

But actually months don't serve any purpose in a seasonal-calendar. Instead of having seasonally-named months, just have nominal-seasons.
.
Then the week's number within the season gives an obvious immediate measure of how far through the season that week is.
.
...something that's obscured by weeks numbered within months.
.
"Early-South" and "Late South" label two parts of the same divided South-season, which are separately week-numbered.
.
...because they're in different calendar-years, and so that the new year can start with all numbers set to zero.
.
Of course this goes without saying, but I'd like to mention it anyway:
.
Though the variability of weather and temperature at any particular time of year is greater than the astronomical inaccuracy of Nearest-Monday, people could nonetheless prefer maximal astronomical accuracy over maximal convenience.
.
...in which case they'd prefer and choose a non-fixed calendar.
.
For my 3 proposed alternative calendars, or any calendar, that would just mean
substituting the words "The midnight nearest to the intended-time" for "The Monday that starts on the midnight nearest to the intended-time".
.
That could be called "Nearest-Day", or "Nearest-Midnight" as opposed to "Nearest Monday".
.
2019-W01-2 (South-Solstice WeekDate)
2019 Late-South Week 1 Tuesday (6-Season -3 wk Offset)
.
Michael Ossipoff

I should add that a simple numbering of the year's days would work alright if a 10-day week were used.

Then, the date, that simple day-number, would tell what day of the week it is. For example, if the day number is 129, then you know the day-of-the-week is a "Nine",, the 9th day of the week.

As for payment periods, payments could be made every 3 weeks.

Michael Ossipoff

2019-W01-1 (South-Solstice WeekDate)

2019-W01-1 (South-Solstice WeekDate)
2018-W52-1 (ISO WeekDate)
2019 South1 Week 1 Monday (6-Seasons -3 wk Offset)
2019 South1 Week 1 Monday (6-Seasons 0 Offset)
2018 December 24th (Roman-Gregorian)
2018 December 25th (Hanke-Henry)
3 Nivȏse CCXXVII (French-Republican)
.

Let me mention my favorite alternative-calendar proposals--my own alternative-calendar proposals. ...two of them:
.
They’re both seasonal calendars, and they both start their year on the Monday closest to the South-Solstice. Today (Roman-Gregorian December 24th, 2018) is such a Monday, and is the first day of the calendar-year for both of the calendars that I propose.
.
Here’s the more briefly-described minimal seasonal calendar:
.
South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar:
.
As I said, it starts its year on the Monday closest to the South-Solstice (…by the standard that I specify in another section below). From that year-start day, it numbers the weeks, and states the date by the week-number and the day-of-week number (…where the 1 to 7 numbering starts with Monday.)
.
By the South-Solstice WeekDate calendar, today (Roman-Gregorian December 24th, 2018) is:
.
2019-W01-1
.
(The first day (Monday) of the first week of 2019)
.
South-Solstice WeekDate, as I said, is the minimal seasonal calendar.
.
Other than the year-start rule, South-Solstice WeekDate is identical to the widely-used ISO WeekDate.
.
(ISO WeekDate, using a different version of Nearest-Monday, starts its year on the Monday that’s closest to Gregorian January 1st.)
-------------------------------------------
Now, as for my more elaborate astronomical-terrestrial seasonal calendar-proposal:
.
I might as well start with the name for that proposed calendar. I call it 6-Seasons -3 wk Offset.
.
Maybe not euphonious, but descriptive.
.
First a few descriptive comments that tell what was intended to be achieved with this calendar (…after which, the complete and concise definition of the proposed calendar):
.
I prefer a seasonal calendar. …a calendar with months that are seasonally-named. More specifically, it’s an astronomical-terrestrial seasonal calendar, by which I mean that it starts its calendar-year near a cardinal ecliptic-point (solstice or equinox…specifically the South-Solstice), and its month-naming is about our terrestrial seasons (named in terms of solar-declination).
.
It’s a “month-start uniform” calendar, by which I mean that every month of every year starts with the same day of the week (Monday).
.
That also means of course that every year starts on the same day of the week, which means that one printed calendar can be used for every year, and that regularly-annual events needn’t be re-scheduled for the new year due to different correspondence between dates and weekends. A calendar with this latter property is called a “fixed-calendar”.
.
Nearly all alternative calendar proposals are fixed-calendars.
.
6-Seasons -3 wk Offset designates the day-of-the-month by specifying the week-of-the-month and the day-of-the-week. …so that, as with the WeekDate calendars, the date itself tells you what day-of-the-week that date is. I’ve found that that date format is by far the most convenient one for a calendar with months.
.
For example, today, 2018 December 24th, is, in this proposed calendar:
.
2019 South1 Week 1 Monday.
.
(“South” because, when it’s Winter north of the equator, the solar-declination is south declination)
.
South1 is the first month of the year in this calendar, and this is this calendar’s 1st day of 2019. As I mentioned above, the calendar year is defined as starting with the Monday that starts on the midnight that’s closest to the South-Solstice.
.
(…actually, though it’s pretty-much the same thing, it specifies an _arithmetical approximation_ of the South-Solstice, which I describe in another section below)
.
As I’ll describe below, “South” is this calendar’s name for “Winter, north of the equator”. I’ve named the seasons for the solar-declination that they’re the result of. Winter north of the equator is the result of the southmost solar-declination, and so I call that season “South”.
.
Of course, naming the seasons by solar-declination, instead of the conventional season-names, is chosen because, if the seasons were named for their names north of the equator, then the names would be meaningless south of the equator.
.
This calendar recognizes 6 seasons instead of just 4. Many seasonal calendars try to shoehorn the seasonal-year into 4 seasons, and it doesn’t work very well.
.
There’s a lot of agreement that 6 seasons are more realistic.
.
March isn’t really very Spring-like, but it’s also not plain Winter either. It definitely heralds the arrival of Spring, even if Spring hasn’t arrived yet. So I call March “Pre-Spring”. Pre-Spring, in my calendar, closely coincides with our Roman-Gregorian March. Of course, symmetrically, the calendar also has a Pre-Autumn.
.
(..but of course those are instead called Pre-Northward and Pre-Southward, in keeping with the naming of seasons for solar-declination….about which more below.)
.
There’s a widespread consensus, and has been for some time, that the South season (Winter north of the equator, and Summer South of the equator) arrives with the beginning of December.
.
…and, likewise, that the North season (Summer north of the equator, and Winter south of the equator) arrives with the beginning of June.
.
My astronomical-terrestrial seasonal calendar starts its named seasons consistent with that consensus about December and June, and in keeping with what I said about 6 seasons, with Pre-Spring and Pre-Autumn.
.
Year-Start Rule:
.
This calendar uses a version, a variation, of the general class of year-start rules that I call “Nearest-Monday”.
.
It’s designed to 1) Start every year on a Monday; and 2) keep the year-start as close as possible to some “intended-time”, which, for this calendar is the South-Solstice.
.
…actually an arithmetical-approximation to the South-Solstice. …just as our Gregorian leap-year rule is intended to arithmetically approximately track the March Equinox, so as to accurately place Easter with respect to that equinox.
.
Specifically:
.
The year starts with the Monday that starts on the midnight that’s closest to the (below-specified) “intended-time”.
.
Here’s what the intended-time is:
.
The South-Solstice. But, just as our current Gregorian leap-year rule is intended as an arithmetical approximation to track the March Equinox, so as to place Easter as accurately as possible with respect to that equinox--so I choose, for the intended-time, an arithmetical approximation of the South-Solstice, for the purpose of starting this calendar as near as possible to that approximate South-Solstice. Here’s the arithmetical approximation:
.
Because, roughly every 365.2422 mean-solar-days the Sun returns to the same ecliptic-longitude, and the seasonal-year returns to the same seasonal-time:
.
…So, every 365.2422 days, the end of that 365.2422 day period is the intended time, for the purpose of starting a year with the Monday that starts on the midnight that’s closest to that intended-time.
.
…where the first 365.2422 day period, in that sequence of end-to-end 365.2422 day periods, starts at the South-Solstice (Winter-Solstice north of the equator) of the Gregorian calendar year 2017.
----------------------------
That’s this calendar’s year-start rule. It’s an arithmetical rule intended to approximate the South-Solstice for years after 2017, for the purpose of starting the year on the Monday closest to that solstice.
.
Other than the year-start rule, South-Solstice WeekDate is identical to ISO WeekDate.
.
(ISO WeekDate, using a different version of Nearest-Monday, starts its year on the Monday that’s closest to Gregorian January 1st.)
.
With the same year-start rule, both calendars, South-Solstice WeekDate, and 6-Seasons -3 wk Offset, start their 2019 calendar-year today, on Roman-Gregorian December 24th.
.
…which is the Monday that’s closest to the South-Solstice, as described above.
------------------------------
The Month-System for the 6-Season -3 wk Offset Calendar:
.
If they were named only for the latitudes north of the equator, the 6 seasons would be called:
.
Winter, Pre-Spring, Spring, Summer, Pre-Autumn, Autumn.
.
But, named for the solar-declination that causes the seasons, they’re called:
.
South, Pre-Northward, Northward, North, Pre-Southward, Southward.
.
Here are the month-lengths (in weeks) in each season. Each numeral after a season-name is the length (in weeks) of one of its months :
.
South 544, Pre-Northward 5, Northward 44
.
(Of course, symmetrically, North, Pre-Southward and Southward follow the same pattern.)
.
Here are those seasons’ month lengths (in weeks) written in a single-row, without the season-names:
.
544 5 44
.
In order for the South season to start (approximately) when December starts, the South season is defined to start 3 weeks before the calendar-year begins. (As I said, the calendar year begins on the Monday that starts on the Midnight that’s closest to the (approximated) South-Solstice.)
.
…hence this calendar’s name: 6-Seasons -3 wk Offset
--------------------------------------------
In each season, the months are named by consecutive numbering. In each month, the weeks are named by consecutives numbering.
.
But, because the South season starts 3 weeks before the calendar-year starts, then, unavoidably, the South season is split between two calendar-years. …and the South1 month described above is likewise split.
.
So the first 3 weeks of the South season (the part of the South season in the old year) are designated as a month called “Early South”. The remaining 2 weeks of the South season (the part of the South season in the new year) are designated as a month called “South1” (because it’s the first South season month that’s in the new year).
.
Of course, as individual months, Early-South and South1 each has its own numbering of its weeks. Of course the next (5th and last) month of South is South2. …followed of course by Pre-Northward, a season with only one month, and designated as a month.
.
Other than that, way of dealing with the split-season, the seasons and their months are named as described above.
.
Yes, the splitting of a nominal-season between two calendar years causes a bit of naming un-neatness and structural-asymmetry. …an unavoidable price for starting the calendar-year near the South-Soltice and also complying with the consensuses about the South and North seasons starting with December and June, and about 6 seasons with March as Pre-Spring.
---------------------------------------------
As I said, these named seasons comply with the consensus about the South season beginning when December starts, and the North season beginning when June starts. …and the consensus about there being 6 seasons, with March being Pre-Spring.
---------------------------------------------
What? This calendar doesn’t have the month-system simplicity that other alternative-calendars have, and is too drastically different, to be adopted? Of course. As I said, I only propose it for some hypothetical future time (which will probably never arrive) when people demand complete departure from any unnecessary copying of how things were done in that past.
.
That’s why I call it “Science-Fiction.
---------------------------------------------
In fact, of course _any_ calendar-reform at all is science-fiction. Practically no one is interested in an alternative calendar, and, when the subject is mentioned, practically everyone expresses strong opposition to changing the calendar.
.
Anecdotal report: I spoke to someone who doesn’t want a new calendar, and she said that the only alternative calendar that could be acceptable to her at all would be Hanke-Henry. …the calendar whose each quarter has months of 30,30, and 31 days, and which starts its year on the Monday closest to Gregorian January 1st. Among the alternative fixed calendars with regularized months, Hanke-Henry is the minimal-change calendar proposal.
.
But, though Hanke-Henry is currently being proposed, and has a website, and has had some favorable media-mention, of course practically no one has heard of it, and, as I said, practically no one is interested in changing the calendar when they hear of the subject.
.
I should add here that, if it were desired to have the 30,30,31 quarters that Hanke-Henry uses, but to not make the year-start dependent on the Gregorian year (as Hanke-Henry does), then Nearest-Monday could still be used in a different version:
.
Just use the arithmetical rule that I describe above for year-start for my 3 calendar-proposals.
.
…but start the sequence of end-to-end 365.2422 day periods on the January 1st of any previous year whose date/season correspondence you want the new calendar’s seasonal year to stay close to.
.
In conversations at forums, including this one, people who are favorable to changing the calendar have unanimously expressed preference for one of the ones that’s more radically-different than Hanke-Henry is.
.
…including ISO WeekDate, Asimov’s World-Seasonal, Eastman’s International-Fixed Calendar, and the French Republican Calendar of 1792.
.
But of course I wouldn’t expect even _them_ to like the less-simple month month system, and the bigger changes, of 6-Seasons -3 wk Offset.
.
But, most likely, South-Solstice WeekDate would be acceptance-competitive with ISO WeekDate, Asimov’s World-Seasonal, French-Republican and Eastman’s International-Fixed.
.
…though nearly everyone strongly opposes changing the calendar.
.
So what’s the point of discussing a calendar that’s un-adoptable anytime soon? For one thing, that can be said of _all_ of the alternative calendar proposals. If you’re going to write fiction, it might as well be good fiction, fiction that you like.
.
Anyway, it’s of interest what an astronomical-terrestrial seasonal calendar would be like if it actually recognized and modeled the seasonal consensuses that I described (South season starting with December, and North season starting with June, and there being 6 seasons including a Pre-Spring (approximately March) and a Pre-Autumn.
.
Anyway, it’s alright that there’s no chance of changing the calendar, because there’s nothing wrong with our current international standard calendar, the Roman-Gregorian calendar.
.
Roman-Gregorian is seasonally accurate—For any date, that date always closely coincides with nearly the same solar ecliptic-longitude. …and therefore the same seasonal time-of-year. What drift-rate there is, is slow enough to not be problematic (probably not even noticeable) in a person’s lifetime.
.
Though Roman-Gregorian doesn’t have the conveniences that the alternative calendar proposals have, everyone is completely satisfied with Roman-Gregorian.
.
It’s been claimed that the lengths of the Roman months require the rhyme “30 days hath September…” , but that isn’t true. Actually the Roman months alternate almost perfectly between long and short months. The only exception to that alternation is the adjacent July & August and December and January. …the extreme hot and extreme cold pairs of months.
.
February is different from all of the other months, with its shortness and its leapday, but February is unique and notable anyway, as the first month that shows signs of approaching Spring. …and therefore can be said to deserve its calendrical uniqueness.
.
This concludes my definition and discussion of my 2 alternative-calendar proposals, South-Solstice WeekDate and 6-Season -3 wk Offset; and my Nearest-Monday year-start rule proposal; and these comments about alternative-calendars and calendar-change in general.
.
Michael Ossipoff

I like the first one the best. But honestly, we should just count the days individually. Why do we need weeks and months?? — Edgar Burnett III

It's been argued that months are helpful as payment-periods, But we could just make payments every 4th week, in the WeekDate calendar.

I'd say the main value of months is to name the parts of the year for denoting seasons, Our Roman months have been in use for about 2000 yiears, and so everyone everywhere knows what weather and temperature and other environmental conditions tend to go with each month.

For alternative calendars, I like seasonal calendars whose months are named by the season they're in, and their numerical order in that season.

So, I'd say that seasonal marking is the only justification for months, Sure, WeekDate's week-number tells you something about the season, especially if the weeks are numbered from near the South-Solstice (as are the weeks of South-Solstice WeekDate). But a calendar with seasonally-named months makes the seasons explicit, and that has appeal.

But no months or even weeks? The trouble with that is that the week is too important for all of our social and societal interactions. No, not having weeks would be inconvenient,

I have to admit that Iike the minimal-ness of ISO WeekDate and South-Solstice WeekDate. But there's something nice about explicitly seasonally-named months. I've proposed two calendars with such months.

The French-Republican Calendar is the stand-out rural nature seasonal-calendar, and is probably the earliest one that I've heard of.

December 22 (Roman-Gregorian Calendar)
December 23 (Hanke-Henry Calendar)
2018-W51-6 (ISO WeekDate Calendar)
2018-W52-6 (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)
1 Nivose (Snow-Month) CCXXVII (French Republican Calendar of 1792
.....Peat (Each French Republican day of the year is named for an element of rural life.)

We should just do the year and day. That's it. Forget all the extras. Today is 352-2018. Simple and easy

The ISO has an official format for annual day-numbering, but the week is too important in all of our affairs to not have it,

Michael Ossipoff

”Then you shouldn’t have agreed to it.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
I don't think I did.

.
Yeah here’s what was said:
.

”…you can’t claim any proof that it has some kind of absolute, noncontextual, context-independent reality.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
I am happy to agree that reality is contextual.

.
I assume that by “reality”, you meant “physical reality”. Materialists use that word in that way, to express their belief that this physical world is all of Reality.
.
You continued:
.

The difference between what I judge to be real and what is merely hypothetical, is that the real acts (directly or indirectly) on me, while that there is no reason to think the merely hypothetical does. That is a manifest difference.

.
It’s no difference.
.
As I’ve answered many times:
.
By definition, in an experience-story, the protagonist’s surroundings act on the protagonist, and the protagonist acts on his or her surroundings. That’s just the defined nature of the mutually-interacting complementary pair consisting of the protagonist and his/her surroundings in a life-experience story.
.
That interaction between you and your surroundings is inevitable in your experience-story, just by the definition of an experience-story. …so it hardly distinguished between a hypothetical experience story and whatever else you think this physical world is.
.
In the purely hypothetical story that I’ve spoken of, your surroundings, and the physical world as a whole are “real” and “existent” by your definition (because they act on you). So that leaves the question of in what way the physical world that you believe in is different from the one that I propose, and in what way it’s “real” and “existent” in a way that the one that I describe isn’t.
.
That’s what I’ve been asking you, and that’s what you haven’t answered. But I’m not pushy, and I’m willing to accept that you don’t have an answer.
.
And, by the way, action isn’t a good definition of or standard for reality, because actions are time-bound; they take place in time. Reality is timeless.
.
Events in time are of this physical universe only (…likewise for each of the other such universes, of course).
.
…which is why Nisargadatta said that, from the point of view of the sage, nothing has ever happened.
.

”Anyway, which part of “needn’t exist or be real in any context other than its own” don’t you understand?” — Michael Ossipoff
.
I have no idea what the limitation "any context other than its own" means. Obviously, if we exclude the datum of actual existence, we have no basis for talking about actual existence, but that hardly seems fruitful

.
If “actual” means “part of, or consisting of, the physical world in which the speaker resides” and if that’s what you mean by “actual existence”, then this physical world and every physical part of it is “actual existence” even if it’s nothing other than the setting of a purely hypothetical story, someone’s hypothetical life-experience story consisting of a complex system of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things.
.
Again, your meaning for “real” and “existent” or “actual existence” wouldn’t distinguish between the hypothetical life-experience story that I refer to, and its hypothetical setting--and whatever you think this physical world is.
.
In other words, you haven’t answered my question. But that’s ok, I accept that you don’t have an answer to it, and I won’t continue to bother you for one.
.
I’m not talking about “excluding” “actual existence” (if that means this physical world and its things). I was just asking what, exactly, specifically, you think it is that makes this physical universe different from what I suggested that it is.
.
Your answer was that, unlike what I propose, this physical world is real and existent because it acts on us. I’ve answered that many times, including an instance above in this reply.
.

”But yes, if you don’t know what “real” and “exist” mean, don’t feel bad” — Michael Ossipoff
.
I have a good idea of what it means to exist. To exist is to be able to act in some, in any, way. Whatever can act necessarily exists, and what cannot act cannot act to make its existence known. If a putative thing can not act in any way, it is indistinguishable from nothing, and so is nothing. Clearly acting on us in experience is acting, so whatever acts on us exists, and is not merely hypothetical.

.
See above. By your above-expressed definition of “exist”, this physical world, as nothing other than the setting of a hypothetical life-experience story consisting of a system of inter-referring abstract facts about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things—exists. …because it acts on you and you act on it, even if it’s only an an experience-story. …acts on you inevitably, just by the definition of an experience-story.
.
Certainly what acts on one’s body in this physical world is physical and actual (as I defined “actual” above). But, as I said, by the definition of an experience-story, your surroundings act on you in that story. That’s the definitional nature of the hypothetical complementary-pair (you, and your experience of your surroundings) that I call an “experience-story”.
.
Of course you can say that you don’t believe that this life and this physical world are just a hypothetical system. But it isn’t valid to say that it must be more than that because your surroundings act on you. …because they do that in the hypothetical story too.
.
A scene in a movie:
.
Colonel arriving at a checkpoint in a car in WWII England, talking to sergeant guard: “Which way is it to Greensbury?”
.
Sergeant: “I can’t give information to people who show up in a car. You might be a Nazi.”
.
Colonel: “I’m not a Nazi!”
.
Sergeant: “That’s what you’d say if you was a Nazi, isn’t it.
.

”We definitely agree about the questionable-ness and dubiousness of the meaning of “real” and “exist”.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
No we do not.

.
…not if you think that your definition of “real” and “existent” distinguishes the physical world of my proposal from the physical world that you believe in.
.
…or can come up with a (so far unspecified) useful or meaningful definition for “real” or “existent”.
.
But, before you try to come up with one, I’ll suggest that you not try, because if there were one, surely we’d have all heard about it before now.

.

”Well, it’s necessary component of your life-experience story, of which you and your physical surroundings are the two complementary parts. So yes. “— Michael Ossipoff
.
While not denying that I have a life-experience story, "story" is an ambiguous term, for stories can be real or fictional.

.
See above, about “real”. Stories can indeed be hypothetical.
.

As life experience involves inter-actions, it necessarily places us in touch with existents, which alone are capable of acting.

.
See above. Any hypothetical life-experience-story is, inevitably, by definition, full of interactions between its protagonist and his/her physical surroundings.
.

”I don’t make any claim about logic “existing”, whatever that would mean.” — Michael Ossipoff

.
It's your call to make or not make claims, as it is mine. Logic exists, not as a separate being, but as a set of mental norms, in the minds of rational agents.

.
Suit yourself. As I said, I make no claims about its “existence”, whatever that would mean.
.

”Though you aren’t a Materialist proper, you, along with the Materialists, believe that this physical universe is fundamental, prior and primary with respect to the logically-interdependent realm. It’s a Materialist belief, though you aren’t entirely a Materialist.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
No, that is not my position. I hold that the universe has a derivative, dependent and participatory existence -- deriving its existence, on a continuing basis, from God Who alone is "fundamental, prior and primary with respect to the logically-interdependent realm" (creatio continuo).

.
No disagreement about God, Benevolent Ultimate Reality, as what is really fundamental, prior, primary and Real.
.
But you want to blame this physical universe on God.
.
I, and the Gnostics don’t.
.
Einstein asked if God had a choice about “creating” the [physical] universe. I say 1) God didn’t “create” it; and 2) No, there was no choice about there “being” it. (I put “being” in quotes because there are spiritual traditions that say that this physical world has a low order of “is-ness”, in philosophical discussion.)
.
If God didn’t create it, but it isn’t really so “real” anyway, then there isn’t the question “If God didn’t create it, then why is there it??”
.
No one denies that this physical universe, as a system of inter-referring abstract-implications, is a (low-order, illusory) part of Reality. But it’s something inevitable and not a result of the Benevolence.
.
Traditional, non-Gnostic, Theism is a bit simplistic, with its lumping of all things together as part of the same intentional creation.
.
Just as we should try to explain physical events in terms of local, scientific physical explanations, instead of not trying to explain them and just bumping them up some levels to attribute them directly to God, then likewise so we should try to explain this logically-interdependent realm in terms of inevitable logic before we give up and resort to bumping it up to a higher level for direct attribution and explanation there.
.
In other words:
.
We should explain as much as we can, at the lowest level at which we can.
.
Theism is not incompatible with Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism.
.

”…starting with “If there were experience of a life…”, the starting antecedent in the logically-interdependent realm. “— Michael Ossipoff

.
Since there is the experience, we are no longer dealing with a hypothetical.

.
Experience, and the experiencer, are about as fundamental, prior and primary as a part of the ethereal, existentially-whispy logically-interdependent realm can be.
.
The matter of the hypothetical-ness of the whole system comes up when we ask what metaphysical basis it has.
.
Expect to find something solid under it?
.
There “is” every hypothetical, as a hypothetical.
.

Once the antecedent is affirmed, the conclusion is categorical by the modus ponens.

.
I don’t claim the truth of any of the antecedents of any of the abstract-implications in the hypothetical logical systems that I describe.
.
…nor can any of them be proved true.
.

The question is one of the order of dependence. In that order, logic comes after the physical universe.

.
I get that you believe that. Your assertion above is an assertion of belief. …a belief that this physical universe has some (unspecified and unverified) sort of “existence” or “reality” (whatever that would mean) that the abstract logical system that I describe doesn’t have.
.

I’d said:
.
”I get that that’s the belief of you and the Materialists. You believe that this physical universe has some kind of unspecified precedence, priority, primary-ness in the logically-interdependent realm.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
I think you are mis-reading me. Logic is a human tool, existing in human minds, and abstracted from the nature of being as found in the experienced universe

.
No one denies that logic is all of that. You’re additionally saying that logic doesn’t “exist” (whatever that would mean) other than that. I’ve repeatedly said that I make no claims about the “existence” (whatever that would mean) of logic, or the abstract logical systems that I speak of.
.
So: No disagreement there.
.

, which is ontologically dependent on God.

.
This universe is part of Reality, yes, but a low-order part, inevitable rather than intended by Benevolence.
.

God, knowing all reality at once and eternally

.
Yes, Benevolence implies knowledge.
.

, has no need of ratiocinative thought, and so no need of logic.

.
Yes, logic doesn’t begin to address Reality, or even everyday experiential reality, other than a limited set of facts about experiential reality, of which consists one’s necessarily-consistent experience-story.
.

Of course God does know the nature of being

.
Benevolence implies knowledge.
.

, and it is from that nature that we humans abstract logic.

.
By “nature” you and the Materialists (aka “Naturalists”) mean “this physical universe”. Sure, I won’t quibble about where humans get logic. Logic has no “real-ness”or “existence” (whatever that would mean) other than that? Fine. I make no claim about the “existence” or “reality” (whatever that would mean) of logic, or the abstract logical systems that I’ve been speaking of.
.
You want to believe in some sort of concrete, absolute “existence” or “reality” (whatever that would mean) for the things of the logically-interdependent realm—in some (unspecified) way more than that possessed by the abstract logical-system that I speak of.
.
That’s the big error of academic philosophy, and it goes back millennia in Western philosophy.
.
In fact, in general, when people can’t come up with a useful metaphysical meaning for a metaphysical term that they use, then you shouldn’t assume that it has one.
.
Of course it isn’t for me to want to change your belief in that. Beliefs never change at these forums. I’ve just been stating the difference between what you’re saying and what I’ve been saying.
.
December 21st, 2018 (Roman Gregorian Calendar)
December 22nd, 2018 (Hanke-Henry Calendar)
2018-W51-5 (ISO WeekDate Calendar)
2018-W52-5 (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)
30 Frimaire (Frost-Month) CCXXVII (French Republican Calendar of 1792)
.
Michael Ossipoff