What should Morals and Ethics be?

[Roboramma]

Those are more what I'm refering to, myself. Different "big bangs" with entirely detached realities. I'd say they're more likely to exist than not, but presumably we could never detect them unless they can "collide" with ours.

The many worlds of QM aren't different big bangs. They would all share the same singular big bang. They have separate futures but the same past, at least from the point that they branched (this makes me wonder about time reversal symmetries, but never mind that).

The mathematical universe idea would include completely spatially disconnected big bangs, as well as mathematical structures that don't even have spacetime, let alone big bangs.

The idea of other universes colliding with ours also comes from string theory, in which our 3+1 dimensional spacetime exists sort of stuck on a d-brane in a higher dimensional space. There would be other d-branes moving independently through that higher dimensional space. Note that the distance between us and them is real distance, just though a different dimension which we don't have access to. This fits most closely in the level 1 or 2 multiverse, but I do admit that the additional dimension and the possibility of a collision makes it slightly different.

Anyway, all of this, while I find it very interesting is beside the point, which was that there are regions of space that we know exist but whose specific features we cannot know. We know those features exist but we can't know their specifics.

 

[caveman1917]

You said "exists for all practical purposes". That would imply that it makes a difference in our lives. Did you mean something else? Perhaps "if it existed, it would make no difference for all practical purposes" or something similar?

Well the set of practical purposes, in this case, is the empty set - there are no relevant practical purposes to either their existence or non-existence, given that we're assuming they're undetectable. And every universal on the empty set is true, so strictly speaking both "they exist for all practical purposes" and "they don't exist for all practical purposes" are true. You know, since ∀ x∈Ø: P(x) for any P.

 

[Cheetah]

Ok brains, and?

I asked you some questions, but never mind.

Uh-huh, and how does that relate to well-being?

The flies do what feels good to them, what else?

Yes you can. Many animals have been very successful by being solitary. We're looking at a very narrow moment in time and saying "hey, look how successful humans have been!" I say give it a million years and get back to me about that.

There is a trend in evolution towards more complexity, life started simple.

Read up on the evolution of cooperation and social behaviour. Most animals are solitary because complex cooperation is not an option, you need a large enough brain and the requisite evolutionary mechanisms. Also look at game theory, tit-for-tat, etc to see why cooperation is the more successful strategy.

 

[llwyd]

Build your morality on a objective base, founded in reality, universally applicable, and then use science, logic and reasoning to develop the structure and see where it leads.

Hmm, "on an objective base"? How? The first step is not objective - say choosing as the end goal to make all people Christians or maximizing the greatest possible amount of happiness for the greatest possible number of people, or ending all war, violence and poverty from the world or achieving a small elite of amoral quasi-Nietzschean ubermenschen to rule arbitrarily over the great mass of humanity. There are any number of criteria - all, btw full of answers to moral questions. And after you have made your first subjective choice, you can even pretty objectively evaluate the following moral and ethical steps and choices.

 

[Belz...]

The many worlds of QM aren't different big bangs. They would all share the same singular big bang.

Well, I've read about the possibility of many concurrent big bangs before. When I'm talking about different universes that's what I mean, not parts of this one we can't access, that's all.

 

[Belz...]

I asked you some questions, but never mind.

No, don't never mind. I just don't know what you want me to answer anymore. Perhaps you could rephrase.

The flies do what feels good to them, what else?

Wait, how do you know that?

There is a trend in evolution towards more complexity, life started simple.

By necessity, not because more complexity is better.

Read up on the evolution of cooperation and social behaviour. Most animals are solitary because complex cooperation is not an option, you need a large enough brain and the requisite evolutionary mechanisms. Also look at game theory, tit-for-tat, etc to see why cooperation is the more successful strategy.

How do you define "more successful" if not by human standards?

 

[Cheetah]

Hmm, "on an objective base"? How? The first step is not objective...

See post #409.

 

[Belz...]

Well the set of practical purposes, in this case, is the empty set - there are no relevant practical purposes to either their existence or non-existence, given that we're assuming they're undetectable.

Which is exactly why they effectively don't exist for us. If they effectively existed, the set wouldn't be empty.

 

[Cheetah]

No, don't never mind. I just don't know what you want me to answer anymore. Perhaps you could rephrase.

Just wondered how you thought brains worked at a fundamental level.
How and why do they enable an animal to be more successful than without it?

Wait, how do you know that?

Has to do with how brains work and evolved, the questions I asked you above. I will elaborate soon, give me a bit of time.

By necessity, not because more complexity is better.

Life started simple by necessity, but complexity made it more successful. Complexity and cooperation enabled the invasion and exploitation of niches not available to simpler life. The evolution of brains later on, again opened up a whole new world of possibilities.

How do you define "more successful" if not by human standards?

By ecological standards.

 

[llwyd]

See post #409.

Well, is/ought. Someone might easily say that "universal happiness" should not be the basis of morality, but something totally different. Obviously evolution has created organisms that procreate and generally try to avoid discomfort and danger (though not in all situations). But this fact doesn't automatically, logically lead to utilitarianism (which I guess you are aiming at).

 

[Belz...]

Just wondered how you thought brains worked at a fundamental level.

Chemically.

How and why do they enable an animal to be more successful than without it?

Well, given that a number of current species don't make use of them, I'd say they only make them more successful if it's worth the extra space and food requirements.

Life started simple by necessity, but complexity made it more successful.

Do you have any idea how many viruses and bacteria there are? Those annoying little, simplistic things will outlive every single eukaryote on the planet. How is that not successful?

By ecological standards.

Sorry, I don't know what that means.

 

[Cheetah]

Well, is/ought. Someone might easily say that "universal happiness" should not be the basis of morality, but something totally different.

That would just be an opinion, not a fact.

Obviously evolution has created organisms that procreate and generally try to avoid discomfort and danger (though not in all situations).

Which is why 'well-being' is the universal goal, it applies to all minds at all times and in all situations.

But this fact doesn't automatically, logically lead to utilitarianism

Even if it's an universal fact, applying to all minds at all times and in all situations?

(which I guess you are aiming at).

Not quite, don't know much about it. It was mentioned earlier and I did have a quick look at the Wikipedia page.

 

[Cheetah]

Chemically.

Well, given that a number of current species don't make use of them, I'd say they only make them more successful if it's worth the extra space and food requirements.

What? This makes no sense.

Do you have any idea how many viruses and bacteria there are? Those annoying little, simplistic things will outlive every single eukaryote on the planet. How is that not successful?

Better than you, do you know now many parasites? What has this to do with anything.

Sorry, I don't know what that means.

Sorry, I meant evolutionary.

 

[llwyd]

That would just be an opinion, not a fact.

Which is why 'well-being' is the universal goal, it applies to all minds at all times and in all situations.

Even if it's an universal fact, applying to all minds at all times and in all situations?

Not quite, don't know much about it. It was mentioned earlier and I did have a quick look at the Wikipedia page.

Well, all I can say that this a is really well trodden path and it has never been universally accepted. And I do fail to see how an observation - and a strong generalization - about the behaviour of organisms can logically lead to a claim of how they should behave. Generally objective, scientific facts are pretty commonly accepted, except by various cranks and fanatics, so it's interesting to note that utilitarianism is a very controversial minority view. This leads me to think that it hasn't bridged Hume's is/ough chasm.

 

[Belz...]

I wasn't being facetious. It was a serious answer.

What? This makes no sense.

In what way? You're asking me about the success of brains. It's successful for those who use them. Some animals see infrared. It's successful for them.

Better than you, do you know now many parasites? What has this to do with anything.

Isn't it obvious? Bacteria are more numerous by several orders of magnitude and will outlive everything else. How is that not successful? How do you define success?

You started this line of reasoning essentially by establishing axioms. I am challenging those.

Sorry, I meant evolutionary.

Ok, same comment. How do you determine what's more successful evolutionarily? I mean, if the species dies out it stops being successful, but otherwise?

 

[Cheetah]

Chemically.
...

Well, given that a number of current species don't make use of them, I'd say they only make them more successful if it's worth the extra space and food requirements.

If I asked you why skeletons evolved, how a skeleton worked and why animals with them are successful at exploiting a range of niches unavailable to animals without them, answering 'mechanically' and 'well, given that a number of current species don't make use of them, I'd say they only make them more successful if it's worth the extra space and food requirements' does not exactly inspire confidence in your understanding.

 

[Belz...]

If I asked you why skeletons evolved, how a skeleton worked and why animals with them are successful at exploiting a range of niches unavailable to animals without them.
Answering 'mechanically' and 'well, given that a number of current species don't make use of them, I'd say they only make them more successful if it's worth the extra space and food requirements' does not exactly inspire confidence in your understanding of the subject.

You're the one trying to make a universal truth out of a set of behaviours that are only found in SOME living creatures. That many are very successful, evolutionarily speaking, without these behaviours or organs is the counter to your argument.

You ask me how the brain works. How about you make your point? The brain works chemically; what else do you want me to say?

 

[Cheetah]

In what way? You're asking me about the success of brains. It's successful for those who use them. Some animals see infrared. It's successful for them.

I'm asking why and how they are successful, not if they are, they obviously are.

Isn't it obvious? Bacteria are more numerous by several orders of magnitude and will outlive everything else. How is that not successful? How do you define success?

You cannot use the number of individuals in a species as a measure of success. That doesn't make sense.

Ok, same comment. How do you determine what's more successful evolutionarily? I mean, if the species dies out it stops being successful, but otherwise?

More successful species out-compete less successful ones. More successful behaviour strategies replace less successful ones.

I'm not quite sure exactly how, let me think a bit more.
How would you do it? Any ideas?

 

[Belz...]

You cannot use the number of individuals in a species as a measure of success. That doesn't make sense.

Why not? Below you admit that you don't know how you'd even define success, so how would you know what qualifies or not?

I'm not quite sure exactly how, let me think a bit more.
How would you do it? Any ideas?

I have to say that I don't appreciate being told I don't understand this topic when you can't even define the fundamental terms of your own arguments.

How would I do it? Easy: species that exist are currently successful. There's no such thing as a species that is more evolved or more successful than another, because they each have their niche, and species that are not as successful die out quickly.

 

[Roboramma]

Well, I've read about the possibility of many concurrent big bangs before. When I'm talking about different universes that's what I mean, not parts of this one we can't access, that's all.

I'm pretty sure that what you read about were ideas related to inflation. When inflation ends in some particular region the energy of the inflation field becomes particles. You get a big bang in the region where inflation ended. But inflation continues elsewhere. When it ends in those regions, they also get big bangs.

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