Our most basic axioms

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 1,302
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,925
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Words words words.
Words only have power { significant meaning }, if we allow them to;

...1} steer our Metaphyiscal-2 { spirit-1 } mind/intellect/concepts  and,

.....2} our soul/biology { heart/gut/intuition }, without proper filtering processes of of 1 and 2, that,

.....3} remove uneccessary anxiety, fear etc and, this may be akin to English stiff upper lift i.e. not letting words break your bones.

Similar thing is said of ego. Their ego has gone to there head and taken over control their soul/heart.

Words are an abstract tool for communication of Metaphysical-1 { spirit-1 } mind/intellect/concepts.

1} Trust/faith > 1A-intutive gut feelings > 1B-past self experiences > 1C-experiences of others  communicated to us  ---ergo with our gut intution/feelings of how much we trust/faith in their  trust worthiness of what others are communicating to us--- 

Trust/faith does not occur in a vacuum of space and time.It only occurs via those factors above and perhaps other factors Ive not considered.  We really have nothing else to go on except those four.  Either we expreiecned it, or heard this or that  or read this or that  in a book, magazine etc, and our our intuitive gut then steers us to have trust/faith in this direction or another directionfr.

We have trust/faith in cosmic { universal } physical laws/principles, that, we believe are true everywhere, every-when.

We have trust/faith that 1 + 1 = two in linear systems, and, in 2D systems , that, 1 + 1 synergetically = 4, and,  3 + 3 = 12.

We have trust/faith that, even if we do not understand math, or synergy, that, our lives are terminal beginning and ending.

Some have faith/trust that there is an afterlife ergo a divine reprieve that invalidates terminal beginnings-endings, that, the allows for eternal life of the individual soul/biologic.  The biologic version of Naught is created nor destroyed only transformed.

Some have faith/trust that, the encodings for all occupied space possibliites, is coded in some black holes, --LINK to spherical Vector Equilibrium to surface area of VE equal to surface area of its four equaltorial great hexagonal/circle planes---  if not a combination of black holes, with some having one set of codings and others having other set of codings.

What ever is inside a black hole is expressed on its surface{ event horison }. See Jacob Bekenstien and S Hawkings math.

LINK to area of sphere.... "The first person who answered the question how to find the area of a sphere was ancient Greek - Archimedes. He had discovered that the orthogonal projection from the lateral area of a cylinder onto the sphere keeps its area." A cylinder unfolds to a 2D rectangle. Alternative LINK to the same

A torus also unfold as a rectangle and based on the above we can say that four spheres = four cylinders ergo a torus defined by four spheres = a torus of same outer surface area.

What goes in must come out again.  What is inside a black hole must also exist on its surface as a state/phase of equilibrium.

Universe abhors a vacuum, and Universe abhors equilbrium. 

So what black holes do, is evaporate away their existence to become our finite, occupied space, Observed Time Universe.

See this LINK and go to 57:00 to begin the section where Roger Penroses shows evidence of black holes existence prior to our Big Bang phenomena.  



Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
is it enough to say that my goal is to protect society from dangerous individuals and whenever possible to rehabilitate those individuals. 
No because it leads me to ask what makes you think everybody can be saved?

disinterested in making people "pay" for their crimes.
Then there would be no CONSEQUENCES plain and simple.

My goal does not change because some people disagree
Well your goal is unclear due to the psycho/socio example I was able to use.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
I’m arguing that either objective morality or nihilism is correct question is which one is it?
(IFF) "OBJECTIVE MORALITY" (THEN) is the practical, real-world, functional conclusion "always do what you think is right"?

(IFF) "NIHILISM" (THEN) is the practical, real-world, functional conclusion "always do what you think is right"?

It appears the two proposals are functionally indistinguishable.

It appears the two proposals are functionally indistinguishable.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
Correction, for the sake of discussion I’m not claiming either (no matter how hard you try to force me into that corner) just acknowledging that only one is true.
I appreciate your focus.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
I want to be very clear. You are not obligated to explain anything to me or to justify your beliefs but I am truly mystified that your axioms, such as you have chosen to share them with me, have any power to guide your decision making process or answer what is morally correct or incorrect even if anything actually is morally correct in the way you are describing.
Well stated.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FLRW
Nothing is both true and false.
An OPINION is neither true nor false.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
I suggested a possible definition that we could potentially agree upon for subjective morality
Perhaps, "best guess morality" would be more acceptable?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
IF my experience is real
Isn't the concept of "REAL" defined by your experience?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Let's say I don't know what compels us that doesn't mean I have to accept that some unfalsifiable proposition is the cause and I am absolutely justified in saying that an observable phenomenon like biology is more likely the cause than some unfalsifiable phenomena like morals/punishment/reward/meaning.
Not all who wander are lost.

Not all students are convinced by the first "answer" they find.

It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Even if why is important it is unattainable.
An unknown and or unrevealed and or secret and or endlessly complicated and or incoherent and or unknowable REASON WHY

is functionally indistinguishable from NO REASON WHY.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
is it enough to say that my goal is to protect society from dangerous individuals and whenever possible to rehabilitate those individuals. 
No because it leads me to ask what makes you think everybody can be saved?
IF you have three heart patients who you aren't sure you can save THEN it is still worthwhile to try to treat them.

IF two die THEN it does not mean you shouldn't save the last one. IF they all die THEN it was still worth trying. 

You don't know who you can save till you die.
disinterested in making people "pay" for their crimes.
Then there would be no CONSEQUENCES plain and simple.
You are making a category error here. Not all consequences are punishments and petty revenge doesnot have to be the goal. I'm still not sure why you are so focused on punishing people. 
My goal does not change because some people disagree
Well your goal is unclear due to the psycho/socio example I was able to use.
All that is clear is that sociopaths, a rare subset of humans whose mental health would seem to be compromised, would not share my goal. 

Look this is far simpler than you are making it. If we both want to have healthy lives then we can agree, at least with each other if not with some hypothetical sociopaths, that this goal would be better served if we cooperate with each other then we can agree to cooperate. All human legal systems are just this agreement on a larger scale with more individuals. 
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
It appears the two proposals are functionally indistinguishable.
Well one of the proposals you depicted inaccurately so 🤷🏾‍♂️ .
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
It appears the two proposals are functionally indistinguishable.
Well one of the proposals you depicted inaccurately so 🤷🏾‍♂️ .
Please be specific about which proposal is flawed and in your critique of it.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
You don't know who you can save till you die.
I think you meant to say “try” and in this case you can try all you want people can still prey on your weakness and get the drop on you whenever they get there moment, that wouldn’t happen if you enforce punishment.

Not all consequences are punishments
Well you didn’t give specifics as to how you would deal with the those that go against whatever it is your advocating for.

All human legal systems are just this agreement on a larger scale with more individuals.
Yeah, that’s why democrats and republicans are two peas in a pod. What your not getting is agreement isn’t the issue, the issue is proof and if you can’t prove that we should all agree then the argument is meaningless.

Please be specific about which proposal is flawed and in your critique of it.
Nihilists don’t believe anything is “right”.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
you can try all you want people can still prey on your weakness and get the drop on you whenever they get there moment, that wouldn’t happen if you enforce punishment.

The possibility of punishment does not in fact appear to stop some people from "preying" on one another.

My goal, in part, is minimization of harmful behavior and, in part, the protection of potential victims. Even if this necessitates punishment (a separate conversation) the goal is not punishment.

There is a word for enforcing obedience through fear of punishment. It is tyranny. 
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Please be specific about which proposal is flawed and in your critique of it.
Nihilists don’t believe anything is “right”.
No one involved is a nihilist.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
The possibility of punishment does not in fact appear to stop some people from "preying" on one another.
Exactly, so what do you think will happen once you take that component away?

My goal
Even if I understood and agreed with your goal, how do you prove that your goal is THE goal.

No one involved is a nihilist.
Not the point, that’s what me and 3RU7AL were discussing.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik

The possibility of punishment does not in fact appear to stop some people from "preying" on one another.
Exactly, so what do you think will happen once you take that component away?
It really doesn't seem like you are listening. I am in favor of prevention. I am in favor of people learning lessons. In as much as "punishment" is a tool used to accomplish these things I do not not necissarilly object but my goal is not to "make people pay" because I am disinterested in vengeance. 

It is also worth noting that a legal system which distributes a minimum of "punishment" would be "more successful" since in my paradigm harm=crime so less crime can indicate that harm is being prevented. Likely this process would be imperfect and should be improved and streamlined whenever possible.
My goal
Even if I understood and agreed with your goal, how do you prove that your goal is THE goal.
It really doesn't seem like you are listening to me. I don't believe in any "THE goal". I think we have to get on as best we can without one and in as much as you are not arguing FOR any alternative you are not giving me any alternative. 
No one involved is a nihilist.
Not the point, that’s what me and 3RU7AL were discussing.
IF morality/punishment/reward/meaning not existing REQUIRES that 3ru7al is a nihilist despite his not self identifying as one because he doesn't believe in "real" meaning THEN it also REQUIRES that you are a nihilist for the same reason. 

IF you are not a nihilist because you don't self identify as a nihilist and you believe in your best idea of meaning EVEN if it doesn't exist THEN 3ru7al is not a nihilist because they do not self identify as a nihilist and also believe in their best idea of meaning EVEN if it doesn't exist.

Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
my goal is not to "make people pay" because I am disinterested in vengeance. 
Well I would argue that making people pay and vengeance isn’t necessarily synonymous but regardless of whether or not punishment is your goal, it’s still a repercussion of your goal and that’s noteworthy.

It is also worth noting that a legal system which distributes a minimum of "punishment" would be "more successful" 
But is that a reflection of the system or the community?

I think we have to get on as best we can without one
Why? I think if there’s no objective authority over me I don’t HAVE to do anything.

IF morality/punishment/reward/meaning not existing REQUIRES that 3ru7al is a nihilist
It doesn’t and I never said as much (you ran with that narrative all on your own) I said that’s what we were discussing just like how we discussed it, discussing something doesn’t make it the case.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Well I would argue that making people pay and vengeance isn’t necessarily synonymous but regardless of whether or not punishment is your goal, it’s still a repercussion of your goal and that’s noteworthy.
It is not necessitated by my goal but that is a different discussion than if it is necessary eliminated.
But is that a reflection of the system or the community?
Yes. One is inextricable from the other. The community is the source of the system so anything that reflects one is a reflection of the other.
I think we have to get on as best we can without one
Why? I think if there’s no objective authority over me I don’t HAVE to do anything.
IF there is some objective authority over you you don't HAVE to do anything.

Also I am not arguing that any objective authority of any kind does exist and in as much as you are not arguing for one you have not given me any alternative. 
It doesn’t and I never said as much (you ran with that narrative all on your own) I said that’s what we were discussing just like how we discussed it, discussing something doesn’t make it the case.
Fair enough but you might be best served not applying labels at all but instead finding out how people self identify. You must admit you didn't like it yourself when I had a misunderstanding with you.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
It is not necessitated by my goal
It is if one goes against it.

IF there is some objective authority over you you don't HAVE to do anything.
You do in order to avoid punishment.

Fair enough but you might be best served not applying labels at all but instead finding out how people self identify.
I didn’t apply any labels to anyone but myself.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
The valid option Tarik is the availability and variability of words.....As I attempted to point out previously.....But you missed the point, maybe.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
It is not necessitated by my goal
It is if one goes against it.
Of my goal is human wellbeing and IF someone is actively trying to undermine human wellbeing THEN my goal becomes to protect others from the offending individual NOT to punish them.
IF there is some objective authority over you you don't HAVE to do anything.
You do in order to avoid punishment.
I don't have to avoid punishment. In fact IF some punishment were threatened and IF the penalty was the consequence of promoting wellbeing  THEN the most preferable action is to promote wellbeing and then accept the unjust punishment gracefully and courageously. 
Fair enough but you might be best served not applying labels at all but instead finding out how people self identify.
I didn’t apply any labels to anyone but myself.
That is a wise policy. 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
This may mean that we don't get any satisfactory answer. I understand that can be confusing and uncomfortable.  How it makes us feel doesn't change the facts though.
It is easy to ask a question that cannot be answered.

In the same way it is easy to fabricate a riddle that cannot be solved.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Nearly as easily as one can fabricate an answer that one cannot be certain of. 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
No one involved is a nihilist.
Although I wouldn't generally call myself a nihilist (mostly because a nihilist would never communicate with anyone because of the pointlessness of the very idea) I do accept the label in the context of this conversation as a sort of place-holder for some sort of extreme skepticism.

Skepticism is generally advantageous and extreme skepticism is extremely advantageous.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Nearly as easily as one can fabricate an answer that one cannot be certain of. 
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Tttmttfwtinkm was once responsible for making lighting. Now we have another explanation.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
The valid option Tarik is the availability and variability of words.....As I attempted to point out previously.....But you missed the point, maybe.
What does that have to do with the existence or nonexistence of an afterlife?
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Everything and nothing.