This is a continuation of In Any Objective Morality Existence must be good
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1

In continuing on with this portion, one has to accept the very fundamental premise that "Existence should be." If you disagree with this premise, feel free to refer and post back in that thread. For those who at the minimal can at least assume the premise is true for now, this will continue to build a morality that goes through non-living existence, living existence, and finally human existence. This part will cover non-living existence.

Here are a few definition repeats:
Good - what should be
Existence - what is
Morality - a method of evaluating what is good
Our first necessarily objective good: Existence

But wait, where are the people? Isn't this about morality? I don't care about rocks and hate math. :)

Yes, this will eventually get to people, but an objective morality has to build to that point. Since we know that existence is good, we know that morality exists even if people wouldn't. Meaning morality is a part of existence itself, and thus to build to the point where we can understand it as it applies to people, we have to examine as it builds up to the point where we consciousness comes about as an evolved expression of the many atoms that make up our being. I will have one example at the end that applies to people if you want to see that first at the bottom.

Existence may be good as a fundamental, but where do we go from here?

Existence is 'what is', but existences are discrete breakdowns. We have atoms, plants, cats, and humans. We have distinct differences within existence. What is it that makes something a 'thing' instead of being the sea of existence?

At least to living things, a 'thing' is recognized by its function. A cell has organelles, but a cell is a 'thing', or an existent, because the cell as a whole interacts as separate from what is around it. A mitochondria produces energy, while the amoeba it powers pokes a fish in the eye with its false foot. These identifiable actions are expressions of an existent, or thing.

But let us go simpler. We do not know what, or if there is a smallest particle, but we can use atoms as a good base to start with. To start with, let us imagine that the only things which exist are two hydrogen atoms. We can observe two expressions of a hydrogen atom. One expression is the atom on its own in relation to the absence of anything around it, while another expression is if it 'bumps' into the other atom.

Why is it important to identify existences? Quantification and measurement.

If we know that existence is good, then we know that more existence would be more good. But the only way to know if we have more existence is if we can quantify them, which we can do here. With this, we can make our next claim:

The more existence there is, the more good there is.

So we have existences identified by expressions, and can now quantify and count existence. So at its most basic, having 2 hydrogen atoms is a universe that is better than one with only 1 hydrogen atom. Of course, the atoms could express themselves individually, or bump into each other. This brings up two more points: Potential, and time.

Potential expressions are another form of existence. How a hydrogen atom will react when it 'bumps' into another hydrogen atom is different then when it is by itself. Even though a hydrogen atom may be by itself, its potential expression still exists. While potential expressions are a bit harder to measure, they are very important to analyzing existence.

Of course, potential means nothing without time. Time is a moment of existence in which a difference of expression occurs. Not 'existents', but the totality of existence. So if even one existent changes its expression, time is happening. If nothing changed, time would 'stand still'. Potential existence is what can happen over the next tick of time.

So then we reach another proposal:

The total existence of any closed examination is the sum of the expressed over actual time, and potentially expressed existences over predicted time.

So then let us examine some scenarios.

Two atoms exist. They express themselves individually over two 'ticks' of time. For convenience and to have to think less, we'll use seconds.

So, (2 expressions + 4 potential expressions) * 2 seconds = 4 expressions(ex) and 8 potential expressions(ptex) over the next time measurement.

It doesn't seem like we have much to work with here, but now lets introduce a new concept: Evolving existence.

Existence has an interesting property that if it expresses itself in a unique way, or combination, it evolves into being capable of creating more expressions then on its own. Take two hydrogen atoms, and they can do more than 'bumb'. They can interact in such a way as they become a molecule, or di-hydrogen. What does this do for our existence?

2 ex + 4 base ptex for the atoms. But with the addition of a molecule we now also include
1 more molecules expression plus the potential that it could break into individual atoms again.

This is a total of 2 + (1) exs and 4 + (1) ptex.

Why is this important? Because without adding another atom, more existence and potential existence is created. Evolving existence. Alright, lets simplify further and see what else we can figure out.

Part 2: Establishing patterns of existence for moral analysis

Since an evolved existence is composed of other existent expressions, and there is the potential for those existent expressions to break into individuals again, no ptex is lost.

So in sum:

1. Existences and potential existences are expressions over time. This is the measure of 'good'.
2. Existences can evolve into different identities which create new and more diverse expressions.
3. The more potential expressions, the more existence, and the more good.

Finally, we reach a human evaluation at the end! Read here if you're just interested in this part and then want to review the earlier stuff to see how it gets to that point:

Let us take a situation in which a submarine has crashed to the bottom of the ocean. There is no communication with the outside world, no way for the submarine to recover, and everyone on the submarine will die. No one will ever discover what happens on the submarine, as it will be crushed by gravity into a pulp. There are currently 10 people aboard the ship. There is enough air for 1 person to breath for 10 hours. An explosion could happen which would kill 9 people and leave one alive. Which is more moral, 1 person living 10 hours, or 10 people living one hour?

In this instance we remove all culture. We remove all appeals to authority. All notion of history. All notion of rewards or punishments. All notion of intention. There is only material existence and its expressions.

In regards to material existence, we know nothing changes. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. What matters here is the expressions of that material existence, and the potential it creates. As this is a comparison problem, 1 person living 10 hours vs 10 people living one hour, we will eliminate anything that is the same on both sides of the equation.

The bodies are the same. The key element is the expression of life. To simplify, each life will be a point. Life will be an expression of that point. Lets start with one person living 10 hours. In this time with no other lives to interact with, they could do everything any one of the other lives could in this time. Our time tick will be hours, and what they do with that hour is one expression of that life.

1 life * 10 hours = 10 unique life expressions.

It would seem that 10 lives * 1 hour would result in 10 unique life expressions as well. Except we haven't yet included the unique potential expressions. In the case of the crew, each life expression can potentially interact with another life expression. This does not exist in the case of one person being alive. The amount of potential interactions are:

10! * 1 hours = 3,628,800 unique potential life interactions

Meaning, while the unique life expressions are the same, the potential existence of what those unique life expressions dwarfs that of the single individual. Meaning that it is equal material existence, but more potential existence for ten people to live on hour that 1 person live for ten hours.

Finally, lets evaluate the best actual existence that could happen during that time. If each life interacted with each other life in that hour, we get: 10(self existence)+9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1 = 55 expressions of existence. The single person living would need to live 55 hours to make up for the actualized optimal expressions of existence.

Taking existence as being good, we can finally calculate an objective measurement of what “ought” to happen. And that is the ten people should survive for one hour instead of 1 person killing them all to live 10.

Let me know what you think!

Continuation to "The morality of life" here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15250/if-existence-is-good-what-is-the-morality-of-life