You are not responsible for morality, it is your choice, but being immoral has repercussions. If we're judging by amount alone, then it's always moral to save the majority; if you decide not to save the majority, then the environment you face after will criticize that, especially if there is no better reason. You will face the repercussions of your decision.

Simulation doesn't have to be contrary to the norm of reality, simulation can coincide with the norm. For example, each star may have a system, and each system is separate from the other - no system contains another system. In this way the universe is simulated systematically. Minds only 'load in' the presence of their solar system, and other systems aren't 'loaded in', but will be if mind becomes local.

Depends on many things. If, as depicted, it would be a relatively quick death, then I would base my decision on 'who', rather than amount. If it were my family member who was the other one, or a prospected greater good, I'd eliminate the majority; in such a case where the majority would experience major pain, and the other one not so much, I would save the majority and lose my family member. If we're asking what's the moral reason, there can only be one right answer.

And that's only because you're pulling the lever.

It's probably best not to. Save the feral collusion of people against objects.

It might be a case of 'they're all cranks saying crank'.

agreed.

Basically it's being suggested by the opposition that if we make a plan, it's not us, but some universal force controlling us to make a plan, and thus, no will is involved.
I argue that plans/acts do alter the future course, but that we can be in a mode where we're doing mostly one mind-module, for example, constantly picking the righteous choice, and thus we stray not too far from a determined path; however, the simple forced act of changing mode directly, indirectly changes the future.

doesn't that take all the sufficiency out of a plan, in that by creating a plan to follow, we end up following a different route into the future. The claim that the plan was the future then, doesn't change the fact that had we not created it, the future would be different. To suggest the query of whether determinism is or not, and address it with a blind 'it could be', is not a true argument. You can say 'how do you know it isn't determined?', but you can't say with any accuracy that plans don't change the future. I can say with accuracy that plans do change the future(without routing back under the false impression that determinism 'is', or 'makes a stand here'). I then would question whether I had any choice in both matters, but that's not siding with either argument originally.

I'm asserting that if we aim to change course, i.e. switch the mode we're in (what we're doing right now) it changes the future indirectly.

it seems you believe query of whether everything is determined or not, outweighs 'what is.' In this way you suggest that 'determinism means that you can't tell the act was willfully chosen', but what is, is a indirect change in future happening before our eyes.

definitely.

that's correct.

not necessarily, it's indirect.

from whatever it was going to be if I didn't make that action.

The Sun is life - but it may not be conscious. In a way, it could be conscious in some format encircling what it is, it doesn't have to be exactly like a soul inside, it may be a small glint, it may be something else.

I think death is the great male - the true cyan to our true magneta(life). I don't see death as the end, but rather the force of all simulation(the paint in our mind's eye, per se). In death, things are different. There is no morality for the non life, it's only life that experiences morality. The sky lives, it isn't just a simulation, it making a imprint in our mind is - that part is simulated. All life tries to be moral at some point, some like skies, more than others. There's no progression, and therefore no pleasure, without being moral. The suns light will not be received if it doesn't be moral, and it's sort of hardwired into its shape to seek it's light above others - to continue existing, to the point it couldn't really be immoral.

This is so sensible to me, I understand completely.

Though I would disagree with 'or we never stop'.

Since it should be P4, and it introduces the proposition that we could complete the supertask. In this case, there must be infinite time. In infinite time, it's no longer a supertask, but a measure of a greater and lesser infinity. If we imply an infinity and then imply a greater infinity, there is the middle of the two that we can call X, and for X, we can assume all natural numbers were recited, just like we assume natural numbers go on forever.

great

technically, currency is one of the ways money is expressed - like a physical points system. Simply gaining recognition is a type of money if it leads to your ability to gain something.

we have always attributed value to people's intelligence. What you mean is currency hasn't been around.

I like that but I think money is natural and we should just reform the system.

Currency may not reflect money truly enough, one person's work may be worth much much more.

Start with changing the financial system.

Everyone gets a type of benefit, and the incentive to work isn't just to 'get by', but rather to have a good time. Too much of the good life is restricted to those at the bottom, which exists in the current financial system, while those at the top are living the greater life with access to all the resources. It's not just the matter that they earned this life, it's that they earned it in the current financial system - it was sold to them this way.

In my opinion we need to delegate the good life to those who deserve it, and allow the poorer people access to good things.

Another thing is schooling - it shouldn't be so expensive - and it definitely shouldn't be a one chance thing.

Another thing, Gucci and other clothes brands technically owe something to the people for having the unfair ability to sell their clothing for super high prices.

ok.

You should have a theist side and an atheist side, but more an atheist side. God is not a theory you can rely on...

If things are expressed in relation to it, but not of it, then it only follows that it is an opposite, negative part of all of the universe.

you are measuring ticks on a clock, in relation to time.

Chat-GPT and other talking bots are not intelligent themselves, they simply follow a particular code and practice, and express information regarding it. They do not truly think or reason, it's a jest of some human's programming.

if I asked you 'how long did it take you to make this post', you would then express a relation to time, '10 seconds', from your own perspective of its negativity.

The only thing we do with time is relate to it.

Philosophy is often associated with a love for wisdom; empathy and compassion, not just for other people, but all other things, is important for philosophical thought. A love for the whole information of what we observe, leads to great insight on how everything is and connects.

Time is definitely negative, and there is a relationship between the negative and the positive.

no, that would be you.

Well, what am I supposed to accept.

People are non conscious?
All consc is the same?

This sounds absurd. You're likely the true schizophrenic.

In my opinion there are no non conscious, everything has a consc, but consc types vary; someone may be 1/16 quantum, others may be 1/1 quantum and there could be other types other than quantum(or as you would term 'real', instead of quantum, but I find quantum a better term because something that is, improperly defined as unreal, if existent, is also real, so this real/unreal logic doesn't work - the correct term is Quantum.)

The root of a simulation isn't meant to be easy to sum, so I would say we have not accumulated the knowledge required to understand why minds were created by a simulator.

Plus I don't really believe in a 'simulator', I believe in rational simulation. It is just an element of existence. It's almost as if it's all as it seems('real', or whatever) but there is logical simulation occuring(such as the mass of far away stars only 'load in' when we're close to them and from Earth they are simulated with miniscule mass).

Fame is not necessarily an indicator of center.

If the universe was secretly miniscule, as opposed to gigantic, would that be more efficient? It would, at least, be less to manage.

There are an abundance of reasons concerning efficiency as to why having a simulated universe is greater than having a quantum universe. In such a case we have a lens unto some great prospect that is stealthily very smart and streamlined.

It may be more a real simulation than you think, maybe it does seem like a simulation, and things don't seem like they are completely quantum, but none of us have all the knowledge required to perceive the universe this way.

The burden of proof rests on you if you believe the universe is/looks completely quantum(or as you may put it, 'real').

We have objectives, for example, we are given the natural order to survive. Sometimes our decisions are relating to natural orders(such as survival).

There's an element of objectivity to our lives, there are things we must do, logic gates we must pass to experience(hunger, thirst, peace-making, aggression, etc). If we are immoral concerning these logic gates, we won't be able to experience the good.

Initiating existence was once a natural order, it was once the reason we ought be moral.

I have a different understanding of good and evil, and morality; I find most of the OP incorrect at a base level, and there is no good translation available.

Existence is ought otherwise it wouldn't be(see: the correct understanding of morality((there is not correct against(((i.e. immorality - it will always be incorrect))); you have to be moral for things to continue((((i.e. immorality in the case of survival leads to not surviving)))), and there are things ought by existence, but the fact that existence is ought doesn't necessitate anything other than it will come if things continue to be moral around the time it began. Because existence is ought implies many things, but by no means is it a 'should' other than an acknowledgement of 'existence is moral', based on that matter alone.

Simulation doesn't necessarily mean non-technical. It's not just a simulated phenomenon and that's it. Implying ultimate fakeness to the concept of a simulated universe is wrong.

If simulated, it is simulated in some logical way; perhaps we just don't understand it.

Objective morality appeals to intuition, whilst subjective morality appeals to imagination.

Objective moral cases are always open and ask one to conclude, subjective moral cases are closed but can be opened and concluded.

"I need you to work more' (said from Boss in an office to Worker) is a subjective moral case that was at first closed, but then opened, and awaiting conclusion.

Hunger, is an objective moral case that is always open and is awaiting conclusion. Other examples: a need for peace-making, a need for order, thirst, survival, etc.

aren't the religious skeptical and not in denial of, or do you assert that mortality is a cage?

Justly by a matter of coincidence, in my opinion, no-one suffers this way, the status quo will always give righteous births