[Just thinking]

But it's not yours. The essence of a lottery is that the prize belongs to whoever holds the winning ticket.

But my universal moral standard requires sharing. If you won a stake sandwich and we were together and we both are starving you would cut it in half and share it. It's not like a donut that can be divided three ways like you have the outside I have the inside and give the third person the hole in the middle.

[alancalverd]

Then we can't have a lottery because that's about concentrating lots of small purchases into one big prize - the opposite of sharing!

[Just thinking]

Then we can't have a lottery because that's about concentrating lots of small purchases into one big prize - the opposite of sharing!

I knew this was going to happen as soon as I win one million now I have to give it back.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The Sophistry of Christopher Hitchens
by CosmicSkeptic

Christopher Hitchens is one of the most beloved polemics to have been active in living memory. However, his remarkable wit sometimes conceived remarkably poor reasoning, something often unnoticed by those drunk on his elegance.

In this video, I take three typical examples of sophistic reasoning from Hitchens' various debates and speeches, and break them down to expose their flaws.

It is unlikely that I will ever cease praising Hitchens as my favourite writer anytime soon; anybody unfamiliar with my work who lands on this video should know that I take deep inspiration from him.

TIMESTAMPS:

Introduction - 0:00
The Moral Argument -- 4:10
Free Will -- 16:30
The Cosmological Argument -- 21:20

He should be able to answer the questions about morality if only he knew about the universal moral standard based on the universal terminal goal.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The Cosmological Argument -- 21:20

This one doesn't seem to have anything to do with morality. But let's analyze it anyway. First, we need to identify underlying assumptions behind the question.  How can something come from nothing?
First assumption is that it's true, which means that there is something that comes from nothing, and not from something else. If this assumption turns out to be false, then there's no point in trying to answer the question. Imagine someone asks how can fleas suddenly arise from dust? Simple answer is they don't. So far there's no evidence that something can come from absolutely nothing.

The second assumption is that the event can't happen naturally, thus it must involve supernatural cause. It shouldn't be surprising if something that never happened can't happen naturally.   

[Just thinking]

Imagine someone asks how can fleas suddenly arise from dust? Simple answer is they don't. So far there's no evidence that something can come from absolutely nothing.

Fleas from dust are not from nothing it's from dust. The creation of matter may well be a result of supernatural intervention. The universe is a fantastic place however it came to be particularly life it's self so we live in a reality that is hard to comprehend may be a simple power created what we see and experience we are looking for a complicated explanation for what may be a simple beginning.

[alancalverd]

Imagine someone asks how can fleas suddenly arise from dust?

If you have pets, your house dust probably contains a fair number of flea eggs. Cat fleas, particularly, seem very partial to human blood and their eggs seem to hang around for at least a year after the cat has died.

[Just thinking]

Tommy the boxer pup..PNG (1159.06 kB . 721x717 - viewed 2121 times)

If you have pets, your house dust probably contains a fair number of flea eggs. Cat fleas, particularly, seem very partial to human blood and their eggs seem to hang around for at least a year after the cat has died.

I like to spray methylated spirits on the carpet and on the bed mattress to kill fleas and bugs garden atomizer spray bottles work well. No ded or alive cats in my home only a boxer dog.

[alancalverd]

Ah, a bottle of meths and a dog. Takes me back to the glory days.

[Just thinking]

Ah, a bottle of meths and a dog. Takes me back to the glory days.

You should give the glory days a second chance only exchange the meths for Johnnie Walker.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Imagine someone asks how can fleas suddenly arise from dust? Simple answer is they don't. So far there's no evidence that something can come from absolutely nothing.

Fleas from dust are not from nothing it's from dust. The creation of matter may well be a result of supernatural intervention. The universe is a fantastic place however it came to be particularly life it's self so we live in a reality that is hard to comprehend may be a simple power created what we see and experience we are looking for a complicated explanation for what may be a simple beginning.

It's an example I found from Wikipedia article. It was meant to show that something that's false should not be used as consideration for making decisions.
 

It was hypothesized that certain forms, such as fleas, could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh.[1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The question is a form of loaded question.

A loaded question is a form of complex question that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1]

Such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.[2] The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.[2] The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.[2] Hence, the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example, the previous question would not be loaded if it were asked during a trial in which the defendant had already admitted to beating his wife.[2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
Here's another example.
How can the sun goes around the world if no one moves it?

[Just thinking]

Here's another example.
How can the sun goes around the world if no one moves it?

It looks like I can't work it out so all I'm left with is the question is there a universal moral standard and if so what is it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's another example.
How can the sun goes around the world if no one moves it?

It looks like I can't work it out so all I'm left with is the question is there a universal moral standard and if so what is it.

it's an equivalent of the cosmological argument: how can something come from nothing?

The universal moral standard tells us that good behaviors are those which are more likely to help achieving the universal terminal goal.
On the other hand, bad behaviors are those which are more likely to obstruct the achievement of universal terminal goal.

Moral judgements are not solely determined by the actual consequences of actions. They also depend on the intentions. To align the actual consequences with the intention, we need to develop an accurate and precise virtual universe which is relevant to them.

[alancalverd]

universal terminal goal.

Apart from the heat death of the universe, I can't think of any terminal goal. Since ΔS > 0, any behavior will tend towards the UTG.

[Just thinking]

Apart from the heat death of the universe, I can't think of any terminal goal. Since ΔS > 0, any behavior will tend towards the UTG.

Sound destructive but I like it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

universal terminal goal.

Apart from the heat death of the universe, I can't think of any terminal goal. Since ΔS > 0, any behavior will tend towards the UTG.

What makes you sure about that?
Since we're here to discuss about it, the heat death is not an observed fact. It's an extrapolation from what we've observed so far, combined with our assumptions or models. Have you considered alternative models, such as cyclic universe?

We have tendency to underestimate infinity. What's the maximum possible entropy can the universe have before it's considered dead?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Is the heat death of the universe qualified as a goal?

And here's my conclusion.

In this thread I've come into conclusion that the best case scenario for life is that conscious beings keep existing indefinitely and don't depend on particular natural resources. The next best thing is that current conscious beings are showing progress in the right direction to achieve that best case scenario.
The worst case scenario is that all conscious beings go extinct, since it would make all the efforts we do now are worthless. In a universe without conscious being, the concept of goal itself become meaningless. The next worst thing is that current conscious beings are showing progress in the wrong direction which will eventually lead to that worst case scenario.

The only similarity applicable to every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future.

I realise that I have expressed the idea of universal terminal goal in some different ways. I feel that this one is the least controversial and easiest to follow.

So, I think I have arrived to the final conclusion about universal terminal goal. It came from definitions of each word in the phrase, and take their implications into account. Goal is the noun, while terminal and universal are the adjectives that describe the noun.

The word Goal means preferred state or condition in the future. If it's not preferred, it can't be a goal. If it's already happened in the past, it can't be a goal either. Although it's possible that the goal is to make future condition similar to preferred condition in the past as reference. The preference requires the existence of at least one conscious entity. Preference can't exist in a universe without consciousness, so can't a goal.

The word Terminal requires that the goal is seen from the persepective of conscious entities that exist in the furthest conceivable future. If the future point of reference is too close to the present, it would expire soon and the goal won't be usable anymore.

The word Universal requires that no other constraint should be added to the goal determined by aforementioned words. The only valid constraints have already been set by the words goal and terminal.

I guess my further posts here are only used to see how these concepts can be applied in real life. Also to identify potential problems or obstacles in achieving the goal, and how to overcome them.

[alancalverd]

Is the heat death of the universe qualified as a goal?

As far as we know, it's where we are all headed whether we like it or not. The notion of a cyclic universe is intellectually appealing but the bit we are in seems to be one where  ΔS > 0 defines what happens next.

H G Wells (or was it Olaf Stapledon?) described a distant future where everything appeared to the time traveller as slowed down and torpid, though as the thought processes of the inhabitants were equally slow, they were enjoying life on their own terms. So whilst we can predict a state of total entropy on the horizon, I think the horizon will recede asymptotically.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

As far as we know, it's where we are all headed whether we like it or not. The notion of a cyclic universe is intellectually appealing but the bit we are in seems to be one where  ΔS > 0 defines what happens next.

We are not sure yet. And we will never know if we go extinct before then. Or at least if we successfully build an accurate and precise virtual universe which can predict without any doubt what would happen by then. That's why preventing extinction of consciousness universally becomes the highest priority for any conscious entities capable of thinking about it.