It may be, but can you make a few sentences or paragraph actually framing what you are saying about basic necessities and negative ethics. — schopenhauer1

If you don't mind I'd like to continue with my bucket with a hole analogy of life. The hole represents the basic necessities and, by any rationale they need to be tackled first. Otherwise, as @180 Proof said we're going to be in an Sisyphean situation. The word "basic" and "necessities" emphasize this point as they have a sense of urgency in them.

Then there's the issue of what constitutes the hole in the bucket. Do we include in it things that are clearly unavoidable like some forms of suffering like sickness and death?

To some the answer would be a resounding "yes"but if you consider the inevitability of death and sickness it looks like making them part of the problem would be like Sispyhus exchanging his already heavy stone for another heavier one. In other words we would be compounding our own problems. This suggests that for the sake of practicality, we exclude the insurmountable from the list of our problems.

On the other hand ignoring sickness, death, etc which are real sources of misery and focusing on the "easy" problems like, e.g., adequate recreational time, would be like trying to correct the grammatical errors in the speech of someone waving a gun in your face - misprioritization with fatal consequences. What bears mentioning here is that people are interested in solving the problem of sickness and death. Many leading minds have predicted that immortality and perfect health could be achieved in the next 30 years (an optimistic estimate). This means that a lot of the problems which form the basis of an antinatalist outlook are being or will be solved.

As you mentioned, every stage of this ascent into higher planes of existence, each being better than what preceded it, will have its own set of problems. These will then be classified as basic necessities and will require solutions if we are to enter the next stage. I guess the phrase basic necessities is like a slider along the journey to eudaimonia, the ultimate goal. The concept of basic necessities exists only as an urgent reminder of problems that need to be solved (holes that need to be fixed) before we enter the next stage on our path to personal fulfillment.

Another way of tackling the problems that make life so undesirable from an antinatalist point of view would be to increase the flow of joy into the bucket of life. Considering that the real problems of sickness and death are as yet unsolved we can, as many people are wont to say, make the best of what life has to offer. I've heard people tell others to fill every moment with joy or carpe diem, etc. This attitude comes from acceptance that life isn't a bed of roses. There will be problems but that would mean that we should enjoy the smooth trouble-free stretches of the journey.

But in what context? — schopenhauer1

In the context which requires us not to ignore negative ethics.

Everything we know in science dealing with the natural phenomena, every law, discovery, explanation... everything is about some kind of motion, ultimately explained by the dynamics of the underlying elements. At the bottom of it all is just plain mechanics, what moves where and whether it will stick or bounce, essentially.

Subjective experience of consciousness, or qualia, seems to be completely out of reach to be explained by any kind of motion, mechanics, or dynamics. It's something else, and we don't know of anything else. So, the problem is hard because we don't even know the type of answer that could fit here. There is simply no place to start. Or is there? — Zelebg

Strange isn't it that consciousness forms part of the system (logic, pattern recognition, etc.) that explains the world and yet it cannot explain itself?

I see a fundamental problem here which can be better seen within a simplicity-complexity framework.

I believe that, if nature as it is is true, understanding/comprehension has a top-down structure. In a crude sense the complex can grasp the simple but not the other way round. This isn't an outlandish claim for the evidence is plain to our eyes - humans can study and comprehend other animals but the converse is false. The reason being a difference in complexity.

Therefore, "understandably", it would be quite difficult for consciousness to comprehend itself.

So, if all that can be said about a stoic worldview is that it has therapeutic benefits, then it is not a worldview that should interest a true philosopher — Bartricks

I thought Stoicism had as a belief the distinction controllable vs uncontrollable. It so happens, quite unfortunately for most of us, that the former is usually internal and the latter is external. To add insult to injury it's usually the external that is painful. Isn't this truthful? If, yes, then its therapeutic quality would be one more feather in Zeno's cap. Right?

What about banality? Well, let's say that Stoicism is the view that we ought to cultivate the virtues. Well, now it is banal, for virtues just are character traits that it is good and right to cultivate in oneself and in others. So now it is saying just "it is good to be good". Yes, it is. But we knew that already. — Bartricks

I think the nature of goodness is difficult to pin down. There's much controversy about what the definition of "good" is. "Virtue" seems an easier target, a safer bet so to speak, if one wanted to talk about ethics.

I don't follow. Is this a new idea or something pertaining to a previous post? — schopenhauer1

I mean basic necessities kinda screams out at you that it should be a priority doesn't it?

I refer you to my last post as it is basically the response to this notion that positive ethics is required as default for other people to follow. — schopenhauer1

I don't know whether I'm agreeing/disagreeing with you here. "Basic necessities" seems self-explanatory right? Perhaps people will argue over what counts as basic but the words "basic necessities" has a ring of compelling urgency right?

Every person, as a self, body, or both, knows they exist. But that knowledge is certainly variable with concern to each one, as a lot of philosophies about proving one's existence have emerged, and are known for their common contradictions.

What's yours? I would like to hear from you. — Unlimiter

I thought the Devil's greatest trick was convincing the world he doesn't exist. :smile:

Does this OP make sense? I don't know, I don't trust my own mind, so I leave it to you. — Wheatley

Sowing the seeds of doubt...eh...Mr. Thomas...I mean Wheatley?

I'm no fan of religion although I do recognize there's something compelling about it. I believe there's a mystery in religion that needs more detailed investigation.

Anyway...

Religion is the best place to start discussing doubt. Does religion not represent the paragon of certainty? Religion, no matter what its form, is claimed to be truth.

For the sake of simplicity and ease of relatability let's talk about doubting Thomas.

Thomas, if anything, represents the quintessential skeptic, refusing to believe in the resurrection. He is said to have run his finger through the crucifixion wounds of Jesus to, well, confirm that Jesus had, in fact, risen from the dead.

Perhaps in Thomas we can find an answer to your question. What was he doing, "poking" another man, here Jesus?

In my humble opinion the great Thomas was looking for what seems to completely forgotten outside of academia viz. evidence. Said otherwise he was using logic.

Yes, logic is limited by the premises it is fed and that is in fact the primary concern here but many, if not most, claims are amenable to verification and rational analysis. I guess I'm saying the mind can't be trusted but logic is the cure for that. Not perfect I agree but not that bad either.

Or are you just saying that "choice" would be a pinnacle of evolution as it allows the possessor to INTENTIONALLY select the most efficient method? I still think being compelled to use the most efficient method is better (would yield consistently better results) than choosing the most efficient method. — ZhouBoTong

The irony is that choosing the most efficient process is actually having no choice ("being compelled") other than that particular process because if an organism opts for another less efficient process its survival prospects are reduced. It's like telling someone to choose but giving only ONE option (the most efficient process). However this isn't the complete story as you yourself mentioned in a previous post:

Free will gives the option to NOT pick the most efficient method. — ZhouBoTong

On a separate note, I would point out that survival only needs "efficient enough to survive", it doesn't require the "most efficient" — ZhouBoTong

Yes, but you won't disagree that if the most efficient process is adopted by an organism it greatly increases the chances of its survival.

It’s only after the fact that the efficiency is evident, isn’t it? No one can know what the future holds. I tend to regard what you see as efficiency as advantageous — Brett

But we can and do plant the future don't we? The success of such plans may be less than certain but if we look at the way the world's turned out we do have an acceptable hit rate with our plans. Similarly I'd say that knowledge of life processes will give us an advantage for we can select the best processes that give us a survival advantage and discard those that are detrimental.

I can only implore you to carefully re-read what I and others have written. Perhaps Cantor's beautiful ideas will come to you at some point. Perhaps not. — fishfry

:clap: :ok: :up:

I really hope so too.Thanks.

If we both agree that more refined suffering exists at higher levels (along with the "fulfillment"), why would the fulfillment matter in the face of at least some negative experience? In other words, what about "fulfillment" overrides the two principles of non-aggression and non-harm? Why should this grand agenda be enough justification to override the negative ethics? Certainly no one needs fulfillment prior to birth. You must violate the principles of non-harm, non-aggression to another person, in order to create these chances for fulfillment. Why does thinking something is good for someone else count as being a reason to violate these negative ethical principles? — schopenhauer1

In the spirit of pragmatism and wisdom it behooves us to tackle any problem, yours/this included, in the best way possible. For that we must give some weightage to positive ethics. After all we're, hopefully, not in hell, tormented in such manner that makes the desire for pain relief so urgent that it makes positive ethics moot. I don't mean to make light of the real and horrible suffering some have undergone but to consider this as a problem for all is a hasty generalization.

Yet since "the hole" can never be filled once and for all (without discarding (i.e. euthanizing, suiciding) "the bucket"), the infinite task (à la Sisyphus' stone) of re/filling "the hole" becomes "the goal". — 180 Proof

Fantastic point but I don't think this is a complete and accurate description of the human condition. It all depends on what you think is the hole in the bucket of life. If you consider sickness and death, obvious inevitabilities, as constituting the problem then true, the task is a pointless Sisyphean task. I question this attitude, at least insofar as death is concerned. Why? Simply because, in a weird way, complaining about what can't be avoided, like death, is equally, if not more, absurd. It appears therefore that we're left with two choices - Sisyphus or a sad Sisyphus. Where this ties in with what I have to say is that we may need to rethink what the hole in the bucket of life is. Also, if scientists are to be believed there's a lot of research going on in disease and longevity. Perfect health and immortality may eventually banish the antinatalist into quaint mythology.

Is it actually a truth that the most efficient survive? I don’t know how we can really know that without knowing what the alternative might have been. Is our position on the planet, the result of evolution, one of being the most efficient? Is this the best we could be? Would we have been more efficient with an eye in the back of our head, or two hearts sharing the load? — Brett

Great observation. I wasn't clear enough so my fault. Efficiency here represents all principles active in the process of evolution. I'm unfortunately not aware of them. It suffices to say that these evolutionary laws/rules make some pathways of biochemistry and physiology more favorable than others. This is what I'm referring to with efficiency of life.

I don't think this adds up. Free will gives the option to NOT pick the most efficient method. So the best (most efficient) way would be better achieved without free will, as it would ALWAYS occur. If we can identify anything as "best" or "most efficient" then free will's only significant function would be to choose otherwise — ZhouBoTong

You make a fantastic point here. I see this, let's call it rebellion - the ability to choose the "wrong" path - as something of a necessary evil. I think we have a very good analog in our lives viz. what I hear quite often but don't engage in, at least not voluntarily. That's the so-called package deal.

In order to achieve its ultimate goal of survival, life (is this personifying?) needs itself to be able to choose the most efficient means of survival. In order to do that we need organisms that

1. Can think and know what these most efficient pathways are

2. Can choose to go down those life-sustaining and life-promoting paths

As a side-effect we also gain the ability to deny these obvious routes to biological success - survival.

A hint that this is true can be seen in our ethics; especially how it has spread out into environmental issues. Are humans not trying to preserve the totality of the ecosystem which is another way of saying isn't life trying to preserve and promote itself through us, the only organisms endowed with the two abilities I mentioned above.

The quite apparent fact that this isn't working - people don't give a damn about ecology - is evidence that humans have free will that is powerful enough to reject options that clearly have a real impact on their ultimate survival as a species.

I could offer an "explanation" for what is quite frankly an odd situation - evolution backfiring in this case as endowing us with free will seems to have a net negative effect on the living world. Could it be that there's an equilibrium down the road where the species (us) aligns its goals with the 5 kingdoms of life?

more refined forms of negative experience await you. — schopenhauer1

Look at it this way then. Yes, suffering scales with your situation on the hierarchy of needs. You called it, quite aptly I must say, "refined suffering". However, realize that suffering gains a place in ethics only insofar as it prevents self-actualization or flourishing. Of course immediate relief of real and abject suffering is vital. Absence of such privation must be a priority but then it's meaning is only in relation to fulfillment, the real goal

Imagine a bucket with a hole. Yes the hole (suffering) must be adequately sealed (negative ethics) but the goal actually is to fill the bucket (positive ethics).

The rich exploit the poor to rip off the middle class.

I think it doesn't look so bad when we look at the system in its entirety. Good systems ensure equal opportunity. At least that's what they claim. If equality of opportunity to climb up the wealth ladder is a reality then certain features become necessary which probably have some unpalatable consequences. For instance to ensure the possibility of rags to riches we may need to allow for the rich to get super-rich. Putting a ceiling on wealth may dampen enthusiasm for creativity and labor which will have longterm negative consequences on the economy. Look what happened to the USSR where people weren't allowed to benefit from their own abilities.

Another way of looking at the wage gap would be to examine how exactly it's increasing which I believe is your concern. Imagine 3 people. A gets $ 1 and B gets $ 2 and C gets $ 3. The wage gap C - A = 3 - 1 = $ 2. As you can see the wage gap can increase in two ways viz. A gets less than $ 1 or C gets more than $ 3. If it's the former something terrible is going on but if it's the latter then it's a nonissue isn't it.

intelligence and free-will are both mysticism — OmniscientNihilist

Mysticism? Everyone is really under the impression that what they think, speak and do is volitional - choices made without any coercion and/or unconscious influence. What is mystical about that? Of course it maybe an illusion but you can't deny it.

we need not jump to the conclusion that there must be something wholly other than a part of the body (or something material in the bodily realm), like some soul, that is responsible for moving the body — Walter B

The underlined word "material" is the cornerstone of the refutation. All motion till date have been material in cause and effect. Why introduce such a thing as "soul" of which we have no observable data regarding it causing motion?

As for the part-whole paradigm it still needs to explain how the parts move. However this doesn't negatively impact the data - matter moves matter.

Right, suffering is more than bare necessities. It encompasses any negative feeling. Undue suffering is surely its own category but need not be the only one. If we define it like that, why does self-actualizing or any other higher levels in Maslow's hierarchy HAVE to be the goal over and above mitigating negative experiences? This ties into the idea that we are on a mission to self-actualize. Why is this mission to self-actualize, or to accomplish things, or to connect with people have to take place above and beyond prevention of bad experiences? Also, being that in reality self-actualization and positive psychology, etc. vascilates with negative ones, it should really be rephrased as to why does the pursuit of the positive experiences become more important than simply preventing negative ones or suffering.

To re-frame this in antinatalist terms. Why does the chance to pursue higher levels of Maslow's hierarchy matter more than preventing all negative experiences? Why experience over non-experience? Do we get a spiritual dog biscuit when we go through the experiences? Is it because we are on a mission to make more people who must self-actualize? — schopenhauer1

Look at the accepted history of humanity. Started off as hunter-gatherers who could manage a few grunts in form of communication, finally settled down on the banks of a large river, and then built what we call "civilization". Superimpose on that Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Do you observe any changes? Food --> House --> self-actualization. While not completely true, negative ethics is a thing of the past for a good number of modern humans. They're now in the self-actualization business. Much like you are and others who pursue the arts and sciences. At a very minimum the world now has the environment for positive ethics. Of course, even taking only a wild guess, the vast majority live in conditions that validate your claim for emphasis on negative ethics. Yet, the dark ominous cloud does have that thin silver lining where some are lucky to reside.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs comes to mind.

Suffering, the real gut-wrenching kind, inhabits the world of basic necessities. Granted the definition of basic necessities require modification but let's stick to food, shelter and clothes. As you already know the privation of the severest kind consists in these bare necessitiesof life being unfulfilled.

Sure, negative ethics which I'll read as alleviation/mitigation of suffering is vital to any viable ethical theory. However, considering that the bare necessities of life is now achieved (at least in the developed world) we can turn to the other pressing concern viz. achieving true wellbeing - the Socratic eudaimonia - which I think is another word for what you call positive ethics.

I'm ignoring the true complexity of the issue here. The definition of bare necessities changes and as we acquire the items in the lower rung of Maslow's hierarchy of needs they fade away and a new set of bare necessities take their place. I believe this is how it works.

So, what you see as a fault is just what is expected. Perhaps disparities in wellbeing in our world reinforces this belief.

Some examples of pessimism philosophy are: Depressive Realism, Antinatalism, Efilism.
Initially at first, I would like to include Nihilism as well, but as we know, there also exists what's called "Optimistic Nihilism", which basically says that Nihilism is not necessarily pessimistic in its view towards this life/reality/existence.

And I'm not sure too, if people who adhere to pessimism are mostly also depressed, or not necessarily?

Is there any good arguments against pessimism philosophy?
Or, is pessimism actually a rational, logical, intelligent, and realistic thought?

Thank you — niki wonoto

I'm afraid the realist is closer to the pessimist than the optimist.

It seems that the world has enough variety to admit a wide range of philosophies and attitudes. If one believes in luck then the circumstances of life will determine which attitude one adopts. Very much like when a buttered slice of bread drops to the floor. Do I need to remind anyone which side usually contacts the dirt-ridden floor? To those who are unfortunate enough to live in a world where the buttered side hits the floor I suggest the so-called five-second rule.

Thats like saying you can predict what someone will conclude without knowing their premises. Its nonsense. You would not be predicting. You'd be guessing — Harry Hindu

What then is the correct explanation?

Probability, in my understanding, is the presence of multiple outcomes, each with its own weightage in terms of likelihood.

The opposite of probability, determinism, is that there is only one outcome given the initial state of a system.

In my example the system (person A and the dice) can have initial states that are probabilistic in nature. Even person B who can accurately calculate the outcome of the system doesn't have access to what initial states will obtain. It's here that probability creeps into what is actually a deterministic system.

Thank you very much for the colorful explanation. Appreciate it.

However I am actually talking about there being an injection correspondence between even numbers and natural numbers and so bijection correspondence isn't the only game in town. Ergo, the set of even numbers isn't equivalent to the set of natural numbers.

It doesn't.

Do you agree that there exists at least one bijection from E to N?

If you agree, then you must agree that E and N have the same cardinality, because the definition says that there must be at least one bijection between them, and this is manifestly the case.

ps -- It's like a guy who cheats on his wife. She says to him, "You're a cheater." He says no! Think about all the times I DIDN"T cheat on you.

But that's not the point. If you cheat once, that's the definition of a cheater. If you cheated Monday but not on Tuesday or Wednesday, you can't say you're not a cheater because you didn't cheat on Wednesday. Right? The definition is doing it once.

Likewise the definition of cardinal equivalence is that there's at least one bijection. It doesn't matter that some other function isn't a bijection. — fishfry

Do you agree that there exists at least one bijection from E to N? — fishfry

So there was nothing wrong when Socrates defined humans as featherless bipeds and someone came along with a chicken plucked of all its feathers and declared "this is a human"? After all there was/is at least one human that fit the definition.

I find this world enough of a pain. What horrors lie in wait for us in the "spiritual" dimension?

Jokes aside I think there is a spiritual dimension and people live in it and lead quite satisfactory lives until they meet just that someone who'll break that world into a million pieces.

Minds, in my view, inhabit a world in itself, separated from the physical and is itself subdivided into different worldviews, one of which is spiritualism. However I don't think the mind can detach from the physical and live exclusively in the spiritual dimension a la soul.

Yes, there is some truth to that. I am a fool. Not quite as mad as TheMadFool, though. I'm working on it though. Maybe someday... who knows? — Wallows

:rofl: At least I got mentioned. Good day folks

As a wise man once said: " The world is is not only queerer than we suppose it is queerer than we can suppose.

To try to impose one's pre-supposed ideas and assumptions about the way the world 'should' be is naive.

If you still have a problem with probability and tumbling dice, I suggest you re-visit your assumptions regarding the way you think the world should be. — A Seagull

Great advice. Thanks.

I wouldn't say that theoretical probability assumes the system is non-deterministic. — litewave

It assumes the principle of indifference in this case - that all dice outcomes have an equal probability of 1/6. This assumption helps us calculate the probabilities and the experimental results match the predictions of this assumption. This is an assumption that the system is probabilistic.

If there is a contradiction, it is only in how the system is being represented. In this scenario, person B has complete information about the system whereas person A has only partial information. The difference is not in the system but in the information that each person has. — Andrew M

That makes sense but the issue is that the system (person A and the dice) behaves probabilistically as if B's knowledge amounts to nought. B knows what will happen with each throw of the dice BUT the system behaves as if that knowledge is irrelevant.

And if A threw a hundred sixes in a row it wouldn't be behaving like a probablilistic system? — Dawnstorm

Good point. Anything's possible in a game of chance. However, the issue is of predictability. Person B, given he knows the initial state of the system (person A and the dice) is able to predict every outcome; implying that the system is deterministic. However, the system behaves as if that (deterministic character) isn't the case.

No, because again, as I and others have explained, the theoretical probability does not assume the system is non-deterministic. — leo

:chin: Kindly read my reply to litewave

The world 'appears' deterministic at times at the human scale (e.g billiard balls on a pool table) but this in fact is only an artefact of approximate perception. Is that the origin of the confusion? — Pantagruel

How did you come to know that?

"B knows the initial states" But he cannot know the future with certainty. — sandman

Then sports or life, as we live it, would be impossible. Granted that not every pool player can predict the path of the black ball but experts do it as a matter of routine.


To All

It appears that there is an "explanation" for the situation.

The initial state of the system (person A and the dice) is, as assumed, random. Thus producing the results that are probabilistic.

Yes, person B can predict the outcome of each dice throw but he's oblivious about what these initial states will be. In other words B can predict the outcome of the initial state of the system but can't predict what these initial states will be.

Comments. Thanks.

It's a definition. It can't be right or wrong. — fishfry

If a definition leads to a contradiction?

I'm not denying consequences. If there's anything worth denying it's the claim that consequences play no part in influencing our decisions. Consequences, our perceptions of it, play a big role in the choices we make which, evidently, places limits on our decisions and this looks/sounds/tastes like an absence of free will.

No, that's a great source of confusion. If there exists a bijection between two sets, even a single one, even if there are plenty of functions that aren't bijections, then we DEFINE the two sets as being cardinally equivalent. It's a definition, not a proof. — fishfry

That's where the problem is isn't it?

The definition is inadequate for the reason that, on one hand, Cantor's "preferred" bijection leads to an equivalence between the set of even numbers and natural numbers but on the other hand there exists another bijection that shows that the set of natural numbers is not equivalent to the set of natural numbers.

I understand Cantor's argument well enough to see that there's a pair (1-to-1 correspondence) between the natural numbers and even numbers.

Natural numbers N = {1, 2, 3, 4, n, ...}
Even numbers E = {2, 4, 6, 8,, 2n...}
2 = 2 x 1
4 = 2 x 2
6 = 2 x 3
.
.
.
n = 2n

This then is used to "prove" that the set E is equivalent to set N

I get that and thanks for clarifying.

However I can see another pairing (1-to-1 correspondence) of numbers in the two sets as follows:

N = {2, 4, 6, 8,...,1, 3, 5,...} As you can see I've divided the set N into two parts viz. the even numbers and the odd numbers but note they're included in the same set N

The set of even numbers E = {2, 4, 6, 8,...}

As you can I see can form a pairing (1-to-1 correspondence) between E and the even numbers in set N like so: (2,2), (4,4), etc. and that leaves the odd numbers without a corresponding pair in the set E.

Basically two different bijections are possible. One agrees with Cantor's "proof" but the other contradicts Cantor. You'll have to show that Cantor's bijection is the correct one and the alternative is nonsensical. Can you do that?

NOTE: I've excluded zero from the set of even numbers for simplification purposes

That turned out longer than I expected, hope that helps. — leo

No, you still don't understand. — SophistiCat

Honestly, I’ve no idea what you’re talking about. Sorry :( — I like sushi

I apologize for lumping you all in a group but all of you deny that there is a problem here. Maybe as Sophisticat said I've misunderstood but I hope to express my thoughts more clearly in this post.

Firstly we must agree that we can predict, using physics, the outcomes of events at the human scale. Set aside the complexity of the issue for the moment and consider that given all initial values of a system the outcome pathway is fully determined. leo said that this isn't possible with 100% accuracy which I disagree to. Take the simple example of a space probe. Using rockets in the right locations and fired for the correct durations we can and do predict that the probe lands right side up. This is a 100% prediction accuracy and if there are any inaccuracies they are due to unforseen cotingencies like wind or instrument malfunction.

I hope we can agree now that physical systems at the human scale are deterministic and that includes a fair 6-sided dice which I want to use for this thought experiment.

Imagine there are two people A and B with one fair 6-sided dice. A throws the dice but is oblivious of the initial state of the dice. B has complete knowledge of the initial state of the dice. As you see A can't predict the outcome but B can.

The theoretical probability that the dice will land on a number less than 5 is 4/6 = 2/3 i.e the dice should show a number less than 5 two-thirds of the time (66.66%)

We are now going to calculate the experimental probability. A throws the dice 100 times and checks how the dice lands.

Remember that each time A throws the dice, B can predict the outcome of the dice. So...

The result of the experiment of a 100 throws of the dice will show that the dice lands on a number less than 5 approximately 66 times. This result is in agreement with the theoretical probability calculated (4/6 = 2/3 = 66.66%). In other words the system (person A and the dice) behaves like a probabilistic system as if the system is truly non-determinsitic/probabilistic.

However, B knows, since he knows the initial states of each dice throw, that the system (person A and the dice) is deterministic/non-probabilistic and that each outcome is predictable.

1. We know that the system (person A and the dice) is deterministic because person B can predict every single outcome.

2. We know that the system (person A and the dice) is probabilistic because the experimental probability agrees with the theoretical probability which assumes the system is non-deterministic.

There is a contradiction is there not?

It is not probability that is an illusion; it is certainty. — A Seagull

We can't say that because we know the system (person A and the dice) is deterministic because person B can predict the outcomes of every single throw of the dice.

In my view? You said ‘mathematics’ so I don’t have an opinion on the matter. Certainty, in mathematics, is - for example - 1+1=2. I don’t have an opinion about this.

Mathematical probability isn’t based on observation/experimentation. It is used to interpret experimentation and observation thought aided my measurements.

Don’t conflate the abstract with the concrete when talking about mathematical models and reality. — I like sushi

Well you said

Yes we can. The ‘definite’ claim is probabilistic though — I like sushi

The word "definite" is usually associated with certainty which is the antithesis of probability. I thought you had an interesting take on the subject.

Actually I think we can calculate "exact" probabilities e.g. in the chance of getting a heads on a single coin-flip is "exactly" 50%. No more, no less.

However, I'd like you to take a step back into the nature, as generally understood, of probability which is basically an uncertainty about a given event. For instance we have a "definite" number, say 70%, when meteorologists predict the weather. Yes, I'm sure about 70% - it's a definite quantity - but are you certain that it'll rain or not?

I didn't give it much thought and it probably shows. Anyway...

Imagine two 6-sided dice A and B

Imagine A is rolled in our world by a person like you or me. The outcome of the dice is predictable given initial conditions. You can't disagree on that.

Now imagine dice B exists in a non-deterministic world where probability is real.

If you test dices A and B you'll observe that both yield the same results as if both resided in a non-deterministic world.

Can you explain why?

Yes we can. The ‘definite’ claim is probabilistic though. — I like sushi

What is the difference between probability and certainty in your view?

There are several things to the definition. One is any experience which varies between individuals. The room feels hot to you, cold to me, and fine for a third person. The experience of temperature is subjective. If we wanted to measure the room's temperature, we use a thermometer which gives us an objective value which does not vary.

Another is private. I have a dream, and although I can tell you about my dream, you cannot experience the dream yourself. The experience is private to me. So although dreams can be studied objectively, the experience itself is only available to the individual who has that dream.

A third is perceiver-dependence. This is based on the kind of perceiver, and their sensory capabilities. So humans experience the world through five senses of an upright walking ape, with differences among individuals due to color blindness, being able to taste a certain chemical, incapacity, etc.

The perceiver-dependent qualities of human subjective expereince would be those sensations we have good reason to believe are generated by our nervous system, instead of being properties of the world around us. So shape, size and location are objective properties of things in the world, while color, sound, taste are properties we experience because of the kind of creatures we are. Going back to the room temperature, our experience of heat or cold is a perceiver-dependant quality. The temperature is objectively the kinetic motion of particles moving about, and not a feeling of coldness or heat.

Nagel makes the argument that science creates a view from nowhere that has no perceiver-dependent, private, perceptually-relative sensations. There is nothing it's like to be a wavefunction or a supernova or evolution. It doesn't feel like anything, it doesn't look like any color, it doesn't sound like anything. The particles moving about in a room don't feel cold or hot. Ultimately, it's mathematized models of some reality divorced from our experience of it. — Marchesk

I agree that subjective experiences are unique and no two are alike. What I'm suggesting though is that subjective experiences are constructed out of material that can be objectively analyzed.

1. Consciousness is universal in form. (There's no difference in the nature of consciousness between two conscious beings)
2. Subjective experience is necessarily unique and can't be something that is shared
Ergo,
3. Subjective experience is not consciousness
Ergo.
4. Subjective experience is the interaction of consciousness with its environment
5. The environment of consciousness consists of ideas and the physical world insofar as it affects consciousness
6. Ideas and the physical world can be objectively analyzed
7. Consciousness can b e objectively analyzed
Ergo.
8. The interaction between consciousness and its environment can be analyzed objectively
Ergo,
9. Subjective experiences can be objectively analyzed

To quote Regis, Is that your final answer? — Pantagruel

Is there any other answer? Look, I'm willing to accept that there is an issue of scale when it comes to laws of nature. For instance the quantum world is claimed to be fundamentally different from the world of suns, planets and galaxies and coincidentally what sets them apart is that the quantum is probabilistic; not so suns, planets and galaxies.

However, a dice and a planet or you or me seem to be within the range of the mechanistic physical laws of Newton. Measures of force, mass, angles, and other relevant data are all we need to precisely predict what the outcome of dice-roll will be. Kindly read my reply to Leo below:

It doesn’t take 100% accuracy to put men on the moon. Also modeling gravitation in space is much easier than modeling all frictions on a dice thrown in the air and bouncing on a surface: the dice will bounce differently depending on the hardness of the surface at the precise point where it bounces, and a tiny change in the angle at which the dice bounces will totally change how it bounces and its subsequent motion, so it’s a chaotic system, a tiny difference in initial conditions will change the final state of the dice and in most cases we can’t measure all relevant variables with sufficient accuracy. Also, the guys going to the moon could control their trajectory to some extent during the flight, whereas we don’t have little guys controlling and stabilizing the dice while it flies and bounces :wink: — leo

Ok. Let's suppose that a normal-sized dice is a "chaotic system" and is actually probabilistic. Just blow-up the dice - increase its size to that of a room or house even. Such a dice, despite its size, would continue to behave in a probabilistic manner despite our ability to predict the outcomes accurately. After all you do accept that rocket trajectories can be predicted and therefore controlled.

Exhibit is the keyword here — SophistiCat

Yes. My issue is that a deterministic system performs like a probabilistic one. It's not an issue of incomplete data for computation as an enlarged dice, something we can have adequate data on, will continue to be probabilistic. We can even calculate the probabilities of every possible outcome which will match the experimental results. Yet, such a system (enlarged dice rolling) is in fact deterministic.

To All

Why does a system whose outcomes we can actually predict behave as if we can't do that? That's what bothers me. Thanks.

How do you figure this? Practically speaking, physical science is always subject to some degree of inaccuracy. — Pantagruel

Physics/mechanics???!!! We've put men on the moon. Surely a humble dice is within its reach.

I think you're on the right track though I think you may not like the destination. :up: :clap:

So you can force someone into existence because- happiness? That is what I'm talking about as this all pervasive "trump" card. Get away with not following non-aggression principle because happiness. In almost any other aspect of dealing with an autonomous adult, forcing someone would be considered wrong. — schopenhauer1

As I said we require, as a necessity, happiness to make life worth living. If one is reasonably certain that happiness in some form can be provided to a person then I see no reason to prevent his/her birth. I base this view on plausible claims that people find happiness in being mentally, physically, socially and economically healthy; all within attainable limits. If so then it appears that the required combo of life+happiness is achievable. Why deny it?

After all antinatalism has as a basic premise that life is suffering, like Buddhists. That reminds me. Buddhists believe that although life is suffering it is also the only opportunity for nirvana. So the argument goes that we suffer endlessly in the cycle of birth and death in samasara and yet it's the lives you live that are your only opportunity to break free. What say you on this?

Also I think happiness, the lack thereof, is actually the trump card of antinatalists. I must say though that, given the state of the world - it's dark history, the problematic present and, if this continues, a bleak future - antinatalism "is" a sound philosophy. However there is a lot that can be said of people, their strengths in the face of an indifferent universe, that may change that "is" to a "was".