Good exists - a Catholic comments

[FrustratedFool]

First, accepting that an agent can exist without parts, and also accept that is simple and thus more likely to be true than something complex (having two or more parts), is quite a big acceptance. And is a being who holds every true fact and every counter-factual statement in their mind/memory really not composed of parts/is simple?

But even if we take that as possible, then why could not apply the same simplicity to some underlying physicalist Grand Law of Everything out of which then unfolds the multiverse?

Could we also then not ask which seems less intuitively absurd to be a brute fact: an omni being or a physicalist universe composed of one thing?

I still can't see a difference in absurdity. Absurdity just says something is unreasonable/ without explanation. No matter how many brute facts existed wouldn't they all amount to the same thing: zero explanation? I don't see how absurdity is additive?

[zebo-the-fat]

Looking at all the evidence, it's clear that the universe was made by cats!

[FrustratedFool]

Bloody cats.

[GrandizerII]

But even if we take that as possible, then why could not apply the same simplicity to some underlying physicalist Grand Law of Everything out of which then unfolds the multiverse?

I'm not arguing that this isn't an option. Even better than an abstract law is some grand naturalistic entity. The point I was making is that, intuitively speaking, some brute facts sound less absurd than others.

Not everyone will share this intuition of course, but I suspect a lot of people would consider something that seems non-arbitrary to be less absurd as a brute fact than something very arbitrary. But if not, this is at least how I would look at it.

Could we also then not ask which seems less intuitively absurd to be a brute fact: an omni being or a physicalist universe composed of one thing?

You can, if you want. In fact, I wish more and more people contemplated this kind of stuff. It feels lonely sometimes when I seem to be the only one contemplating this.

I still can't see a difference in absurdity.  Absurdity just says something is unreasonable/ without explanation.  No matter how many brute facts existed wouldn't they all amount to the same thing: zero explanation?  I don't see how absurdity is additive?

Yeah, brute facts imply no explanation, true. But wouldn't you say it makes more sense for some things to exist without an explanation than others? Even if we couldn't logically establish that to be the case, our (or just mine?) intuition seems to be nagging us in that direction.

[FrustratedFool]

Aren't all brute facts arbitrary by definition?

When I use the term brute fact I mean something that exists without any explanation or reason (contra a fact), and yet might have been otherwise (contra necessity), and therefore are utterly meaningless and absurd.

It seems to me that something (the first cause) has to be a brute fact (assuming necessity is incoherent).

So at bottom, reality is absurd whether that first cause was God or a set of physical states or whatever.

Whether one thing is more or less intuitive than another I think this one of many places where our intuition fails us (like picturing big numbers).

Is it more intuitive that a timeless being with infinite power, moral goodness, multiple perfections, and which knows a literally infinite number of propositions has always existed for no reason than that a timeless quantum vacuum of limitless energy (or whatever) has always existed for no reason? I couldn't say. Both are insane as far as my intuition is concerned.

[Angrboda]

I guess I'm wondering why there being no ultimate meaning or free will matters. It seems these things have a certain meaning for you, which seems a contradiction to your apparent belief that absent ultimate meaning there is no meaning.

[FrustratedFool]

I guess I'm wondering why there being no ultimate meaning or free will matters. It seems these things have a certain meaning for you, which seems a contradiction to your apparent belief that absent ultimate meaning there is no meaning.

There being no ultimate meaning really only matters in contradistinction to those who claim otherwise, but I agree it wouldn't affect day to day life or likely even practical life at all. I believe in subjective meanings or semantic meanings and so on, I just don't hold to any objective ultimate meaning. I think that doesn't affect much except perhaps mood, and one's predisposition to believe religion or some other things.

Not having freewill, though, can (and in my life has) made a difference. For example, if I don't believe in freewill I'm going to be far more inclined to look favourably upon nanny-statism and tighter regulation for all manner of things from gambling control to hate speech legislation. It is more difficult to defend libertarianism than socialism without a belief in libertarian freewill.

Likewise, I find myself more inclined to suspend all judgement on everyone (myself included), no matter how abhorrent their actions. They could not have done otherwise. Hitler, for example, was just unlucky rather than a monster. His victims more unlucky. But at no point is there such a thing as morality or blame. This removes the force of retributive justice and inclines me more towards restuitionary justice models.

[Angrboda]

Retributive justice doesn't make much sense with or without free will. And we don't need free will to believe that we are all products of our environment. One could argue the opposite, that giving people the belief that they aren't in control leads to worse outcomes.

[GrandizerII]

Aren't all brute facts arbitrary by definition?

For me, arbitrary and particular are one and the same in this context, so interchangeable. In this context, something is arbitrary if it has some property that appears to be random and could have instead been less or more extreme in quality or frequency or intensity or whatever. Using this local universe yet again as an example, this universe has a set of specific initial constants that govern things in this universe. They are particular because they could have been different values instead, and we could've therefore ended up with the speed of light being higher than it is in our actual universe or the gravitational constant being lower and what have you. And for me, this then raises the question: why did we end up with these specific values instead of others? It's just so random that these specific values, instead of others, would just happen to be (if this universe is indeed a brute fact).

When I use the term brute fact I mean something that exists without any explanation or reason (contra a fact), and yet might have been otherwise (contra necessity), and therefore are utterly meaningless and absurd.

I mean I personally consider necessary brute facts to still be brute facts, but it doesn't really matter that much anyway.

It seems to me that something (the first cause) has to be a brute fact (assuming necessity is incoherent).

If some first cause exists, then I suppose it would have to be, yes.

So at bottom, reality is absurd whether that first cause was God or a set of physical states or whatever.

What is considered absurd boils down to our intuitions. It's a reflection of how we feel about it. Absurdity is not something that's inherent within the thing being contemplated as absurd. It's an "us problem", not the universe or God or whatever. But it just so happens to be the case some things for us sound less absurd than others, whether we're contemplating various possible brute facts or some other type of thing that has nothing to do with brute facts.

Is it more intuitive that a timeless being with infinite power, moral goodness, multiple perfections, and which knows a literally infinite number of propositions has always existed for no reason than that a timeless quantum vacuum of limitless energy (or whatever) has always existed for no reason?  I couldn't say.  Both are insane as far as my intuition is concerned.

The thing with a quantum vacuum is that it's a flux of energy. Flux implies random, which screams arbitrary to me. The more arbitrary, the more insane to me.

Infinite always sounds better to me than something that is complex but is nevertheless less than infinite. Unitary also sounds better to me than something that is finite but more than "one of something".

[FrustratedFool]

Retributive justice doesn't make much sense with or without free will. And we don't need free will to believe that we are all products of our environment.

I think retribution as a deterrent or as a character corrective makes some sense. But fair enough, we likely largely agree on that. And yes, we are all products of our environment. The extent of the effect of environment (or genetics or whatever) has upon our choices is not something a determinist needs to be overly concerned with (in this conversation), so I'll leave that for libertarians to discuss.

But, in short, my beliefs do impact my actions to some degree.