Thread: Do ethics really exist?

I'm not saying there are things outside of reality damnit, I'm saying that if things are defined that way - they are unknowable.

Differentation could only be established after a proper experimental rationale was set down and followed through to conclusion.

Would work if not used against something which is A PRIORI DEFINED as unknowable.

I stand by my earlier statement. And yes! Demanding a lot of yourself is applicable to many aspects of life but sometimes a person walks up to you and really screws you over and there's nothing you can do about it. Does that really mean the "victim" permitted it?

I'm all for rising above victim hood after the fact, but this is a conversation meant to discuss ethics. From a "doer" perspective, if you don't see anything wrong with being a victimizing jerk face you're just accepting a really small self value. I think it's way better to get what you want by being awesome and having the personal power to attract what you want, rather than resorting to sneaky and abusive crap.

That's where you can draw the line, don't you think? Most people don't because it's hard to be awesome and have personal power. I think some people are just losers who never will have it, and some just don't want to work for it. I mean, if you are really a capable person what need have you for tricks and manipulations?

Some people are nothing without them. I imagine this is a scary thought for such persons.

I'm saying the very definition of unknownable is fallacious in and of itself. All things are within the grasp of reason and knowledge given enough time. You simply cannot prove an unknowable state just as you cannot prove an impossibility. The math simply does not work in your favor in this regard. The odds are against something eluding detection and study indefinately. I'm saying that the very definition of unknowable, regardless of how many times it is used or by whom, is fallacious in and of itself since such a definition has no basis in rational thought.

Everyone's definition of knowledge is flawed, I tend to go with the usual "Justified true belief", if something's unjustifiable, it can't be knowledge. There're plenty of things which can be shown to be unjustfiable - hell if you take solipsist philosophies, that goes for everything besides the perceptions of your own thoughts. In such circumstances, saying things are unknowable isn't, ironically, an unjustifiable claim.

To demonstrate this, you treat your own post as knowledge, correct?

You used "indefinitely", humans won't be here indefinitely - in all probability.

You also assume our study doesn't have boundaries, if what is knowable really is a set of infinite elements - it's also probable that our notion of what is studyable (by humans) isn't the set of all knowable things, but a smaller subset.

I'm saying that the very definition of unknowable, regardless of how many times it is used or by whom, is fallacious in and of itself since such a definition has no basis in rational thought.

This is especially flawed.

"Nothing is beyond knowledge, therefore defining something as beyond knowledge has no basis in rational thought."

Now, I come across as being able to state a rational argument, correct? Regardless of what the definition of unknowable is, it will have a basis in rational thought becase we are talking about it using rational methods - if there was no basis of the term 'unknowable' which could be analysed critically, we could not be having this conversation.

Also, claiming nothing is beyond knowledge - it would depend what you define knowledge as.

If someone were to define knowledge as "everything which is knowable" - to what metric? To humans? To ants? To invisible sentient slugs with the power of levitation?

Something must be believed to qualify as knowledge, in the absence of better epistemology I'm going to take the JTB account of knowledge.

If this is a bit of a tl;dr, to say everything is knowable is one thing - I doubt we'll ever know that. But to say everything is knowable to humans, or to any organism is another - is another, and it is a baseless and vain assumption that nothing is beyond study by our minds and systems of inquiry and deduction.

You cannot prove that we won't exist indefinitely. Probability again works against you.

Any argument based off of statistical trends is not absolute, it is not knowledge, it is only a likelyhood.

The likelyhood is we will not exist indefinitely, just look at the species list on Earth - and that the vast majority of species that have ever existed on Earth are now extinct - it is reasonable to conclude we too will become extinct, though not any time soon.

This is aided by the incredible obstacles we would need to overcome, such as faster than light travel - the exponential growth of population would necessitate this.

It is not logical to say that something cannot be done. There is always a chance, however small, that it can be done and that the circumstances and variables will be perfect to allow it to be done.

It is logical to say something cannot be done by humans, such as having any real idea of the motives of an a priori defined sentient, transcendent mind. By real idea I mean understanding its psyche, motives and feelings - if it even has those, as that's an assumption we'd need to make.

Notice how I am not saying a transcendant being exists, or whether any transcendent thing could even be a 'being', we just cannot know these things because our reality is the extent of our possible knowledge.

They are hyperbolic words only used by the ignorant who don't even have the barest inkling of the structure of reality.

And you claim to know the absolutes of reality based off of naive probability theory?

You can argue till you're blue in the face, but your arguments are not based in rational thought otherwise you wouldn't have tried to prove the unknowable in the first place since it logically cannot be proven.

It is highly likely the unknowable to humans exists, all it takes is a slightly more realistic version of your own formula.

You're also _raping_ physics, a universe does not expand exponentially, it expands, for all intents and purposes - linearly, relative to our time. Besides in the moments after the Big Bang in which it expands exponentially due to a process called cosmic inflation. But, for purposes of your argument, I'll do some maths for you, but this mathematics is only for rhetorical purposes, there is no sense of rigor - nor proof, this does not an argument make.

U represents the set of all possible knowledge.
H represents the set of all things knowable to any species with a way of perceiving reality.

Without jiggery pokery and using horrible ontological tricks regarding knowledge we can use naive set theory to draw our conclusion.

H is a subset of U, if and only if H = U then it can be claimed that nothing is unknowable.

Now, for H to be equal to U, we have to assume that all the elements of the set are identical and that the process for finding out knowledge is time invariant.

The growth of number of elements, N, can be given by

dN/dt = ak^t

Where dN/dt is the rate of change of the number of elements with respect to time, t, and a&k are real constants greater than one - this agrees with observeable fact.

dN = aSk^t dt

Integrating both sides, I'm going to use the lower limit of -infinity (to represent all the time in the past, and to simplify the formula's final form) and the upper limit of t, which is an arbitary point in time.

N = (a/lnk)k^t

You can check my maths if you like.
a/lnk is a constant, let's just set it to 1 for the purposes of simplifying the next stage, it's essentially arbitary anyway, so long as it's real valued and greater than zero.

N = k^t
lim N = lim k^t = inf
t->inf t->inf

Since it was already assumed that U has infinite elements, it follows that for any set of knowledge, H, H =! U, some things are unknowable.

You happy?

I never thought I'd have to use infinitesimal calculus on Occult Forums. Thank you Veneficus.

Or alternatively look up the Epsilon-Delta definition of limit and realise that the probabilities are not on your side, as you said.

Limits do not work that way.

Also, you accuse me of ignorance and error?

"The universe is expanding exponentially." It's possible to attach a magnitude to just how wrong you are, here.

If you assume the rate of growth of the universe is exponential - it's reasonable to assume light travelled at the speed of light at the beginning of the universe, correct?

Going to use v for growth rate with respect to time and t for time, c is the speed of light, A&k are

v = c*k^At

Considering the current age of the universe is, at a conservative estimate 13.5 * 10^9 years old, and the speed of light is _exactly_ 299792458 ms^-1 (as defined from the permittivity and permeability of free space - other constants) we get

v = (299792458)*k^(A*13.5*10^9)

Just for purposes of argument, I'm going to assume the value of A is about 1, and having it as low as that is a good thing for you, it's decreasing your error.

v = 299792458 * k^(13.5*10^9)

Now, k>1, due to how exponential growth works.

So I'm going to put in k = 1.01, that seem fair to you? Not a silly estimate? Not overtly trying to screw you over?

It is difficult to convey the magnitude of this error, but if any of you are interested - enter "1.01*10^n" in Google Calculator, and put n at whatever you want, so long as n < 10^9. To give you an idea, n being equal to 1000 gives you the sum

v = 299792458 * 20 959

Now, considering v is actually equal to 299792458 in reality, Vir Sapiens- you're already off by a factor of 21 thousand. You're off by exponentially more than that.

Now, considering that factor of 21k would be equivalent to making the statement "The cuticle on my index finger is equal to the length of one of my arms." (while not exact, it's in a similar ballpark)

You've perpetrated, quite possibly, the most objectively wrong thing I've ever seen in my life.

Sigh, linearly doesn't mean what you think it means. Linear, here, means constant rate of change. That's precalculus, nevermind any good math.

And of course I'm in darkness, even the models I'm saying are gross oversimplifications - no one knows how to model cosmology accurately yet.

But y'know, I'm interested, demonstrate why I'm wrong mathematically, even if I can't understand it I'll bookmark this page and - once I'm out of my position of mathematical ignorance come back and learn it.

This is a forum, it's a conduit for ideas, not for superiority.

And dude, if you can judge me inferior - good. I've finally found empirical evidence for your correctness.

My demonstration of your error - it increases with time. You're getting more and more stupid as the seconds pass.

Furthermore, if all multidimensional spaces expand - and your ass is a multidimensional space. Which it is. Your ass is expanding exponentially, what a coincidence.

Aside from the pettiness, if you're going to judge me unworthy, at least make the insults entertaining for others to read.

Well, I we do create our own realities then the only ethics that exist are the ones we create for ourselves and the others.

Accelerating universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whoops, was mistaken about the expansion of the universe. Oh well, win some you lose some. All you needed to do was link me to this, Vir.

Still doesn't change the nature of knowledge.

Originally Posted by Nohone

Do ethics honestly exist in the realm of the Occult?

This one point in the OP is what caught my eye ^_^
Yes I do believe that Ethics exist in the realm of the Occult. Though it all depends on the person really. Some people my wish to fallow what most consider an ethical path(but even then it all depends on the culture one is in for that).
Personally I do fallow a person code of ethics and honor, but that is for me and help to go about my day(and it is not effect by any god at all).
Thing is in this practice I have no problem with "hex" or "curses". It just depends on the situation.
(I end with a quote)
Do I look like someone who cares what God thinks
-Clive Barker-

Are your underpants made of lard? Do you punch goats while thinking of Morris Dancing?

You're absolutely, balls to the walls, mad.