Morality as Symmetry in Time

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4667
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:39 pm

The origin of morality stems from "all of being" as a unified entity in and of itself. We we deem as "moral" is a proper way to be, with what is "proper" observing a form of symmetry. For example it is "proper" to act in one scenario in "x" manner, while "y" manner is deemed improper.
More specifically it is proper to kill in one situation, such as self-defense, in another situation (strictly for pleasure), it is not. The examples can be particularize further from here, but we are still left with a question of "what is proper?"

Considering each active action is deemed as proper depending upon its manifestation in a receiving or "passive" framework, with the framework being any set of events in which the moral action is activated, the action is deemed as "moral" dependent upon its symmetry to a passive (or recieving) set of events the observer "projects" himself into.

The reciprocal nature of the framework, allowing such action to even begin with, necessitates a symmetry between an active/passive nature to the observer/framework and in these respects we are left with symmetry as a foundation for not just morality but an effectual mirror effect where the symmetry between the active and passive (as one fitting into the other) shows a form of "unity".

For example, killing is justified when one is trying to be killed as the "potential death" of the self aligns with the actualization of "killing" to stay alive. The actual state of causing a perceived enemy to "cease" aligns with the framework of potential death.

In these respects, what deems morality as a proper way of being is not just conducive to "timing" but an inherent symmetry through reciprocation that unifies the actions of the observer to a proper set of movements in time (a homeless person begging for food or a man trying to kill the observer effectively are just movements and nothing more).

This symmetry between the active and passive states of "being" lead to a unity or singularity with "unity" being the foundation of not just "being" but an approximation of this "one being" when observed through approximations of it in localized active/passive phenomena.

Each active/passive set of movements is a localization of the "one reality" and exists as an approximation of it and as an approximation takes on a unified nature in itself as an extension of it. Hence we understand morality as a cause/effect paradigm where one singular structure of events leads to another.

Morality as a proper way of being, is rooted in unity of action through symmetry, and is "cause" in itself allowing the observer/framework paradigm to be reciprocating forms of being where "synthesis" is the root of all "cause" and value in the foundation of the not just the human condition but "being" itself.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:01 pm

From Noether's theorem every symmetry in physics has a corresponding conservation law.
From a naturalistic perspective time symmetry implies that at least some property remains invariant which goes against the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

From a human perspective it begs a question: What are we trying to preserve? Whatever the essence is of that which makes us "human".

It's how I would define objective morality i.e God. The time-invariant essence of that which makes us human.

It begs a question. The one question I am not sure I can answer: What makes us human?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4667
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:33 am

Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:01 pm
From Noether's theorem every symmetry in physics has a corresponding conservation law.
From a naturalistic perspective time symmetry implies that at least some property remains invariant which goes against the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

From a human perspective it begs a question: What are we trying to preserve? Whatever the essence is of that which makes us "human".

It's how I would define objective morality i.e God. The time-invariant essence of that which makes us human.

It begs a question. The one question I am not sure I can answer: What makes us human?
Socrates answered loosely "that which reflects". It is a starting point.


Another point, one strictly anthropological and intuitive, is that our ancestors placed a high status on the sky or heavens..."space".

Clues more than anything.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:47 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:33 am
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:01 pm
From Noether's theorem every symmetry in physics has a corresponding conservation law.
From a naturalistic perspective time symmetry implies that at least some property remains invariant which goes against the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

From a human perspective it begs a question: What are we trying to preserve? Whatever the essence is of that which makes us "human".

It's how I would define objective morality i.e God. The time-invariant essence of that which makes us human.

It begs a question. The one question I am not sure I can answer: What makes us human?
Socrates answered loosely "that which reflects". It is a starting point.


Another point, one strictly anthropological and intuitive, is that our ancestors placed a high status on the sky or heavens..."space".

Clues more than anything.
That which reflects is no more or less useful than saying “I am human”.

What I mean by “what makes us human” is closer to the philosophical notion of “essence”.

How much can you take away while still remaining “human”.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4667
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:55 am

Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:47 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:33 am
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:01 pm
From Noether's theorem every symmetry in physics has a corresponding conservation law.
From a naturalistic perspective time symmetry implies that at least some property remains invariant which goes against the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

From a human perspective it begs a question: What are we trying to preserve? Whatever the essence is of that which makes us "human".

It's how I would define objective morality i.e God. The time-invariant essence of that which makes us human.

It begs a question. The one question I am not sure I can answer: What makes us human?
Socrates answered loosely "that which reflects". It is a starting point.


Another point, one strictly anthropological and intuitive, is that our ancestors placed a high status on the sky or heavens..."space".

Clues more than anything.
That which reflects is no more or less useful than saying “I am human”.

What I mean by “what makes us human” is closer to the philosophical notion of “essence”.

How much can you take away while still remaining “human”.
And the question of "how much can you take away" still goes to a problem of essence.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:57 am

Define human. A worth-while project.

As a wave equation perhaps?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4667
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:01 am

Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:57 am
Define human. A worth-while project.

As a wave equation perhaps?
That means the wave equation would be self referencing and modern math/physics caves in on itself.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Logik » Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:57 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:01 am
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:57 am
Define human. A worth-while project.

As a wave equation perhaps?
That means the wave equation would be self referencing and modern math/physics caves in on itself.
Recursion is not a problem for mathematics.
Infinite loops are.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4667
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:43 pm

Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:57 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:01 am
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:57 am
Define human. A worth-while project.

As a wave equation perhaps?
That means the wave equation would be self referencing and modern math/physics caves in on itself.
Recursion is not a problem for mathematics.
Infinite loops are.
Seperate the definitions...show where they contradict.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Logik » Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:03 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:43 pm
Seperate the definitions...show where they contradict.
There is no contradiction.

Infinite loops are indeterminate. Neither true nor false.

Computation does not concern itself with true/false. It concerns itself with decidable or undecidable propositions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entscheidungsproblem

Because every proposition can be re-stated as a yes/no question.

This is the core of science. Procedural/imperative knowledge.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4667
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:55 pm

Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:03 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:43 pm
Seperate the definitions...show where they contradict.
There is no contradiction.

Infinite loops are indeterminate. Neither true nor false.

Computation does not concern itself with true/false. It concerns itself with decidable or undecidable propositions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entscheidungsproblem

Because every proposition can be re-stated as a yes/no question.

This is the core of science. Procedural/imperative knowledge.
Actually they exist as truth statements, the premises are continually justified.

A decidable and undecidable proposition effectively equates it in form and function to a true/false dichotomy.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Logik » Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:06 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:55 pm
A decidable and undecidable proposition effectively equates it in form and function to a true/false dichotomy.
Sure, but it's easier said than done...
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:55 pm
Actually they exist as truth statements, the premises are continually justified.
What constitutes sufficient justification?

To demonstrate the decision problem you must simply ask this question: Is the premise sufficiently justified?
Now provide an algorithm which asserts yes/no.

And now you have to describe a procedure which asserts 'sufficiency'. Would that be a quantitative or qualitative assertion?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4667
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:01 am

Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:06 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:55 pm
A decidable and undecidable proposition effectively equates it in form and function to a true/false dichotomy.
Sure, but it's easier said than done...

It's already being done. The problem lies less in the "truth/false" values you observe or the "decidable/undecidable" nature of a proposition as being rooted in a dualism. The question is less a problem of the qualities in the dichotomies, but rather the "quality of the dichotomy.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:55 pm
Actually they exist as truth statements, the premises are continually justified.
What constitutes sufficient justification?

This goes back to the rational philosophical problem of the Gettier problem as "justification" and "belief" as knowledge approximately.

The question of justification can be reduced to its definition as "the action of showing something to be right or reasonable".

http://www.bing.com/search?q=justificat ... 2D6FDB0CF1

From this we can break it down to "showing something" and "right".

1. To show effectively is present in such a away where the phenomenon is repeated and leaves an impression on a observer. One does not "show" something they have no already seen. And if they show something, it means the phenomenon is being repeated. I cannot "show" a one time event.

2. "Right" or "Reasonable" relies fundamentally on some sense of order or structure in the respect it is by definition connected to "ratio". If we look at "ratio" we observe a relation of parts. One set of parts exists inside and through another set of parts. The Question of "Right" necessitates a form of equilibrium in these relations.

3. Justification effectively is the replication of some equilibrium. This statement is too abstract as "equilibrium" has no real sense of "meaning" unless we observe a fraction or "ratio" where "x/x"; necessitating some form of unity or axiom defined through itself as itself. All axioms are subject to this circularity; hence justification is the repetition of an axiom with this repetition being an adaption to "chao" where the axiom exists as one thing in multiple states. A simple example of this would be "axiom" (using the premise as an example) where it is justified by "adapting" to a variety of different words by effectively mirroring itself into further words.

adage
aphorism
dictum
maxim
precept
proverb
theorem
apothegm
device
fundamental
law
moral
postulate
proposition
saying
truism
truth



To demonstrate the decision problem you must simply ask this question: Is the premise sufficiently justified?
Now provide an algorithm which asserts yes/no.

And now you have to describe a procedure which asserts 'sufficiency'. Would that be a quantitative or qualitative assertion?

Premise = A

(A → 0) → (((A/A1 → A/A2 → A/A...) → (A1/A → A2/A → A.../A)) → 0)

All A = Yes as A is existing.
All A/A... = No as A is existing in a gradient form, a fraction of itself.

1) Yes and Grades of Yes (No) exist simultaneously.

2) The premise continues in both a true form, and a simultaneously false form (fraction of itself) by progressing to a constant variable of "0".

3) The premise effectively adapts by reforming itself in the face of "adversity" and in doing so is constantly redefined and reevaluated. Through the "continuum" it acts as its own proof where its expansion into multiple states exist simultaneously as fractal states.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:04 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:01 am
The question of justification can be reduced to its definition as "the action of showing something to be right or reasonable".

From this we can break it down to "showing something" and "right".
So you have turned one decision problem: Is my belief justified (J)? (Yes/No)

into two decision-problems:

Is my belief right (R) ? (Yes/No)
Is my belief reasonable (S) ? (Yes/No)

"If something is right AND Reasonable then it is justified" is of the following logical form: R ∧ S ⇒ J

For every reduction you perform, for every new dualistic distinction you draw, for every new qualification or quantification you add to your argument you introduce a new yes/no question. You move further and further away from establishing the truth-value of the original proposition.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:01 am
All A = Yes as A is existing.
This is your foundational axiom.

Decision problem: Is all A existing?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4667
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:55 am

Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:04 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:01 am
The question of justification can be reduced to its definition as "the action of showing something to be right or reasonable".

From this we can break it down to "showing something" and "right".
So you have turned one decision problem: Is my belief justified (J)? (Yes/No)

into two decision-problems:

Is my belief right (R) ? (Yes/No)
Is my belief reasonable (S) ? (Yes/No)

"If something is right AND Reasonable then it is justified" is of the following logical form: R ∧ S ⇒ J

For every reduction you perform, for every new dualistic distinction you draw, for every new qualification or quantification you add to your argument you introduce a new yes/no question. You move further and further away from establishing the truth-value of the original proposition.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:01 am
All A = Yes as A is existing.
This is your foundational axiom.

Decision problem: Is all A existing?

No, I turned it into multiple answers of the same thing, so the answer becomes a self referencing loop of multiple grades that can adapt to the problem instantly.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest