What do you think exists outside of the observable universe?

you've just hit the nail on the head. 2+3 can absolutely equal 4 outside the universe. *Obviously we have defined the axioms that make this work so if our definitions hold then no, but barring semantics and all that rubbish aside, thats the exact point.

You have no idea what 2+3 equals outside our universe because we come up with all these logic rules through observation. Macro level observation at that, the quantum world works completely differently. There you can get very strange results like 2=4=5 for fractions of a second, before it then becomes 2+3=5.

So no, logic is defined on the actions of the observable universe and are thus an assumption you are applying to outside of the universe. You have no idea of the ruleset outside the universe, so you cannot apply any "logic" to it.

whatever it is, it's "of the universe"

2 + 3 could equal 4 outside the universe. idk. i doubt those numbers, as we understand them, exist outside the universe at all

God I remember Nussbaum as the contemporary star of ethics back in something like 2010? Probably did all her work much earlier and I had only really started getting into ethics then. Good to see she got that official recognition, she deserved it.

It's not really a rule, it's just logic. I don't know how else I can phrase it. Do you also think that 2 + 3 can equal 4 outside the universe?

if i understand things correctly, the idea that "true nothingness cannot spawn something" isn't necessarily true outside the universe as that's a rule of the universe. thus invalidating the premise of "where did that something come from" (the premise being that it must've come from something) and everything that follows

I read this laid back debate between Julian Baggini and Laurence Krauss a while back (https://amp.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/09/science-philosophy-debate-julian-baggini-lawrence-krauss) where Baggini essentially concedes that metaphysics should be replaced by physics. At the time I wasn't really ready to make that concession, but know I see it differently. Other than that point the debate isn't great, with both participants mostly talking past each other, but that point always stuck with me.

Edit: I found it because at the time I was frustrated by so-called "scientism" which I was seeing everywhere, and was trying to find places where scientists had espoused it. I still think scientism is largely wrong and harmful, but I view it more sympatheticly. It's sad but ultimately unsurprising that physicists like Feynman subscribed to it. Only a few physicists like Sean Carroll are even willing to engage with philosophy. Which is annoying because while I don't care much for metaphysics, interpretations of quantum mechanics which imply nonsense like the moon isn't definitively there whilst you're not looking at it are just so nonsensical that I have to hope for theories like objective collapse to win out.

Yeah, you're probably right

non philosopher here, wtf is post-analytic philosophy. It sounds like a terrible name.

Those are all very different questions.

What makes a human? Well homo sapiens, the primate species. if you have the requisite genetic structure, DNA and chromosomes etc... Then you're a human.

A cloned neanderthal would not be a human... It would be a neanderthal.

You mention humanity... Now that is far more subjective, and more to do with the difference between how you socially treat a human vs an animal. Hence if you were treating someone inhumanely, you would be treating them in a manner equivalent to (or less than) an animal. This of course exists because most humans elevate their importance above all other animal and plant life.

Sentience is a very tricky thing to define, and is normally defined as awareness and the ability to experience feelings or sensations.

Of course this definition came about back in the 1600s, feelings and sensations are just a bunch of electrical impulses interpreted by your brain in order to try and get the human to act in a specific manner because at some point historically, acting in said manner would have increased the odds of survival. So does it apply to an android? Depends whether you insist on keeping the words "feeling" and "sensations" in the definition...

I personally wouldnt justify keeping a gorilla as a slave (assuming it wouldnt just tear my arms off) so I certainly wouldnt justify neanderthal slaves.

This can be applied to the modern day. Do you think that the great apes deserve "right to life". If so, what other animals would you extend that to?

God as far as I and many religions are concerned exists outside of time.

The idea of things coming about involves time. For there to be nothing and then something implies time as well. So for there to be no change, there are two possibilities:

1. There was/is/will be nothing
2. There was is/will be something

We can cross out number 1 as we know there is indeed something right now. So no change means there always was something.

But let's suppose there was nothing but that changed and something came about as you say. Now, because time is involved as a change occurred, I can pose the question, "where did that something come from?" A true nothingness, and I mean absolutely nothing, cannot spawn something or else it would be the "thing that caused something" and would be something itself.

With regards to free will, the "rewind" thing was a very small part of my argument. If random phenomena dictate our reality, then I think there's an even better case against free will - more outside of our control. If it would rewind the same (not random), my argument stands exactly the same.

Speaking of time, I've been spending a lot of time in this sub and have enjoyed these discussions, but I gotta take a break for the day at least haha

As someone with a background in physics who every now and then browses this thread. I agree with you completely. My biggest gripe with metaphysics isnt the logical process. Its that for some unknown reasons philosophers in the realm seem to assume that observations made at their (macro) level apply to all scales and scenarios.

I dont agree that "something" must have always existed, I also dont agree that everything couldn't have come from nothing. I just came across this and I dont know the first thing about philosophy. Im a physicist.

Time is a function of our universe. That is to say that time is not linear. It does not pass at a constant rate. It appears to for us as humans. However, we know that time infact changes depending on relative speed. This is a known fact (time dilation, special relativity)

There are objects inside our own universe where the fundamental rules of the universe (time, matter, 3 spatial dimensions etc etc) seem to break down e.g a black hole.

Why is this relevant? Its because you are applying the ruleset of our universe - time, causality, matter, energy etc to a scenario outside of our universe. Essentially, your entire premise requires this assumption to work.

So you say "What happens before the big bang? There must be something? There must be a cause? We cant come from nothing" - Why? All those are rules OF our universe. It is a assumption to assume that any of that ruleset would exist outside of our universe. If there is no time, what do the words before, after, begin and end even mean anyway?

So thus God cannot be the logical outcome. If you need to make a string of assumptions in order to reach your logical conclusion... then its probably not a logical conclusion.

EDIT: your point on freewill in of itself is an entire assumption. You have no idea whether brownian motion or quantum phenomena are truly random, or whether the same answer would repeat if you were to go back in time and observe the event again. Using the current model for quantum theory if you went back in time and observed a quantum event again, it could change. However, there is no way to know as it cannot be tested.

I don’t disagree that “something” preceded existence as we understand it, although I wonder what the implications of that are? I guess I’m more agnostic about anything that by definition can’t be comprehended.

I generally base my atheism as opposed to religious theism. If I were to roughly boil it down I’d say I don’t believe in any omnipotent entity that passes judgement on our existence.

You bring up a good point. I could claim to be atheist, agnostic, or theist depending on what I consider God to be.

There doesn't seem to be a universal definition for God that I could find (some internet searching), which is indeed a problem when it comes to communicating our beliefs on the existence or nature of God with everyone.

Word play aside, I think we can all agree that there is a something that's always existed. Ourselves, what we see around us, etc. couldn't have come from nothing or it wouldn't really be nothing.

Curious what definition you base your atheism on (I presume you are)?

Identifying as an atheist doesn’t mean you deny any possible definition of “God”, it’s referring to a specific definition or group of definitions that need to be agreed upon before any real conversation can happen.

Your argument would make perfect sense to anyone that agrees with your definition of “God” and also doesn’t believe in him. How large do you think that group is?

Interesting and good are subjective. They could also find great meaning in the small focuses that you think adds little value or in the philosophy of language. There is an enormous amount of work being done across topics and with different issue areas out there, perhaps you just haven’t found the modern work that strikes you and that you find significant yet. It may be helpful to engage more with this material you think is wrong or pointless - there may be something your missing about it or you could develop your own counter theories by writing out what you think is wrong about them. If you don’t see contemporary philosophy that strikes you, start writing out your own ideas and then find if anyone out there has similar conclusions.

[deleted]

Why did you include "child, cartoonish, cartoon, childish, kid" as prompts for something hedonistic or stoic? Or, I mean, in general?

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

January 19, 2023

Martha C. Nussbaum is the Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics, appointed in the Philosophy Department and the Law School of the University of Chicago. She gave the 2016 Jefferson Lecture for the National Endowment for the Humanities and won the 2016 Kyoto Prize in Arts and Philosophy, the 2018 Berggruen Prize in Philosophy and Culture, and the 2020 Holberg Prize. These three prizes are regarded as the most prestigious awards available in fields not eligible for a Nobel. She has written more than twenty-two books, including Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions; Anger and Forgiveness: Resentment, Generosity, Justice; Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities; and The Monarchy of Fear.

Website: simonandschuster.com

Sam Harris is the author of The Moral Landscape, Free Will, Lying, The End of Faith, and other NYT best sellers. Sam received a degree in philosophy from Stanford University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA. He has also practiced meditation for more than 30 years and has studied with many Tibetan, Indian, Burmese, and Western meditation teachers, both in the United States and abroad. He is the creator of the meditation app Waking Up.

Summary

Sam Harris speaks with Martha C. Nussbaum about her philosophical work. They discuss the relevance of philosophy to personal and political problems, the influence of religion, the problem of dogmatism, the importance of Greek and Roman philosophy for modern thought, the Stoic view of emotions, anger and retribution, deterrence, moral luck, sexual harassment, the philosophical significance of Greek tragedy, grief, human and animal flourishing, the "capabilities approach" to valuing conscious life, the rightness or wrongness of moral hierarchies, "the fragility of goodness," and other topics.

Sanskrit is not the mother language of all other languages. There are many languages that predate it and had already branched off before it existed.

I tend to agree

I agree it is a collective problem. But I feel guilty if I don't try to limit my emissions (reasonably, because I AM contributing to the problem) and so it's rational in a way to try to limit that feeling by acting to conserve energy. But there are situations where I feel the benefit to me of doing something (e.g. I would suffer health consequences and significant discomfort if I never turned the heating on in winter) outweighs the guilt. I guess everyone's calculation is different, depending on their circumstances and conditioning.

Good questions, I think whenever anything starts approaching human level intelligence we need to ask them. I haven't got any answers for you though, as I would have to look into the literature and have more of a think to make up my mind