Morality can be painfully demanding so much so that we sometimes question the wisdom of complying with it. Indeed, according to H. A. Prichard, making this argument work is the central preoccupation of moral philosophy. But Prichard also believes that to the extent this is true, the whole subject of moral philosophy rests on a mistake. Moreover, the consensus is not only that we should call these things moral but also that we should be these things, which gives us a (...) clue to the word's meaning. When a person refers to an act by saying, “That's immoral” listeners normally understand the speaker to be saying there is reason not to do the act. This way of understanding the term's use may not fully capture the term's meaning, any more than a set of injunctions to be kind, honest, and peaceful fully covers morality's extension. (shrink)

Confucius, Plato, and Aristotle would agree on three propositions: genuine virtue represents a kind of second nature, a result of education such that patterns of choice become natural and predictable that would not be natural and predictable for the average person; there are patterns of gratification attendant on genuine virtue, that involve deeper values than most of the things that people pursue in life; and because of these, genuine virtue is always in a person's self-interest. The word “gratification” here is (...) deliberately broad. There can be brief periods of satisfaction, with performances that enjoyably are going well; these would amount to refined pleasures. But there also can be an agreeable sense of having come to terms with oneself, with no sense of self-disapproval or keen regret. This can be an important element in happiness. (shrink)

This paper gives two complete and elementary proofs that if the speed of light over closed paths has a universal value c, then it is possible to synchronize clocks in such a way that the one-way speed of light is c. The first proof is an elementary version of a recent proof. The second provides high precision experimental evidence that it is possible to synchronize clocks in such a way that the one-way speed of light has a universal value. We (...) also discuss an old incomplete proof by Weyl which is important from an historical perspective. (shrink)

This is a review of John Heil's "The Universe as We Find It".

The causal principle of the Kalām cosmological argument—Everything that begins to exist has a cause—remains controversial. One common objection is that while the principle may apply to things within the universe, it does not apply to the universe itself. Here, I argue that if the universe began uncaused, then there is an extremely high probability that the universe began just moments ago with the appearance of age. However, I further argue that the general agreement of independent (...) estimates for the universe’s age provides powerful empirical evidence that if the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause. (shrink)

I argue that Kant has developed a broad systematic account of the architectonic functionality of pure reason that can be used and advanced in contemporary contexts. Reason, in the narrow sense, is responsible for the picture of a well-ordered universe of science consisting of architectonic ideas of science, sciences and parts of sciences. In the first section (I), I show what Kant means by the architectonic ideas by explaining and interrelating the concepts of (a) the faculty of reason, (b) (...) ideas (as principles), (c) method, and (d) sciences of reason. Thereafter (II), I think through his holistic understanding of science and scientific progress and suggest differentiating between four levels of use of architectonic ideas, drawing on the metaphor of a well-structured universe as imagined by Kant in his work on the Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens. I also claim that each possible idea of reason can be (apart from its primary function) additionally regarded as a fourth-level architectonic concept when explicitly conceived as an object of (e. g. philosophical) studies, i. e. from a mere methodological perspective. In the final section (III), I unveil the potential of Kant’s theory by pointing out how this architectonic methodological function of pure reason is tacitly used in Karl-Otto Apel’s contemporary philosophical research programme. You can get the official version of the paper and the whole issue (open access) by clicking on the attached link. (shrink)

What does reality encompass? Is it exclusively physical, or does it include mental and 'abstract' aspects? What are the elements of being, reality's raw materials? John Heil offers stimulating answers to these questions framed in terms of a comprehensive metaphysics of substances and properties inspired by Descartes, Locke, and their successors.

At Home in the Universe presents and extends the intellectual core ofKauffman's earlier book The Origins of Order (OUP 1993) for any intelligentgeneral reader can understand and appreciate. The reader is very effectivelyinvited into Kauffman's vision and thought processes, in one of the moreexhilarating and important books of popular science.

A Nobel Prize-winning scientist and a leading brain researcher show how the brain creates conscious experience.

Wright, Ken Review(s) of: Universe from nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing, by Lawrence M. Krauss, Free Press, New York 2012; xix + 202 pp.; hardback, $29.99.

This thesis defends the diagnostic accuracy and political usefulness of the claim that women are complicit in their sexual objectification. Feminists have long struggled to demarcate the appropriate limits of feminist critiques of sexual objectification, particularly when it comes to objectifying practices which women both consent to and experience as empowering. These struggles, I argue, are the result of a fundamental misdiagnosis of what happens when women are sexually objectified, whereby the abstract notion of 'treating as an object' is called (...) upon to explicate the kind of phenomena which can only be properly understood in light of a more general set of social norms of masculinity and femininity. A more accurate diagnosis of sexual objectification, I argue, is provided by Catharine MacKinnon's radical feminist theory, according to which sexually objectifying acts are manifestations of the social process through which women are made into objects of male sexual gratification. One important implication of this account is that women themselves play a role in perpetuating the norms through which sexually objectifying treatment of women is enabled: insofar as they participate in the re-constitution of the social context which facilitates their sexual objectification, they are complicit in it. Although this idea lacks intuitive appeal from a feminist perspective, I argue that understanding the nature of the contribution women make to perpetuating their objectification enables a better understanding of what practices of resistance are necessary for effectively combatting the sexual objectification of women. I defend the explanatory power of the complicity account of objectification in light of two pressing debates in contemporary feminist philosophy: the question of how women can disidentify from femininity given the strong attachments they develop to it, and the question of how feminism can continue to appeal to the motif of solidarity considering the anti-essentialist commitments of recent feminist theory. (shrink)

In this critical response to Hodroj, Latham and Miller’s article ‘The moving open future, temporal phenomenology and temporal passage’, I contend that the ‘moving open future hypothesis’ has not yet been conclusively disproven. I first raise some methodological concerns, such as the limited sample population and linguistic diversity, which may impact the study’s conclusions. However, my primary critique revolves around vignette Universe C, which implicitly commits to future events existing, thereby undermining the concept of an objectively open future. This (...) approach restricts the understanding of an open future, which should consider the complete absence of future facts. By failing to adequately capture this ‘thicker’ representation of openness, the study does not convincingly establish that there is no link between beliefs in temporal passage and a genuinely open future. Future avenues for research should focus on refining the vignettes to better reflect the nuances of temporal beliefs and investigate the temporally aperspectival replacement hypothesis. (shrink)

Information is the reduction of uncertainty, and uncertainty is equivalent to entropy. Thus, information is negative entropy. Concepts from information theory can be used to analyse physiological and psychological processes and to probe the nature of abstract ideas such as consciousness and vitality. A previously published model of the Universe indicates that it consists of charge and entropy. Since entropy is energy, then charge and energy are enough to explain the whole of nature. The building blocks of molecules (neutrons, (...) protons and electrons) are formed of negative entropy. Complex high information systems (also negative entropy) lead to living organisms and eventually to complex multicellular organisms that are both vital and conscious. Most of the Universe is a void (maximum entropy) but there are tiny foci, such as the surface of the earth, which are information rich. Everything on the earth is composed of negative entropy—from the simplest physical structure to the most complex product of human thought. There is no fundamental difference between mind and matter. (shrink)

David Lu has recently argued that denying the Modified Causal Principle (MCP)—that if the universe began to exist, then it has a cause—leads to the conclusion that we likely inhabit an Omphalos universe, one that began recently with the appearance of age. Lu goes on to argue that if the universe is likely Omphalos, then independent measurements of the universe’s age are unlikely to agree. I offer three families of objections. First, Lu’s probabilistic reasoning faces technical (...) challenges and, even if those challenges are overcome, cannot rule out an Omphalos universe. Second, I propose an alternative hypothesis that does so. Third, I argue—drawing on a standard argument in the foundations of statistical mechanics—that no ordinary scientific inference can be used to rule out our living in an Omphalos universe. Instead, we must either presuppose that we do not inhabit one or else be stuck in a skeptical scenario tolerable to no one. (shrink)

The Moral Universe advances new answers to central questions in metaethics concerning the nature of moral reality, its fundamental laws, its relation to the natural world, and its practical importance. The book’s central thesis is that moral standards regarding what to do and how to be are not only objectively authoritative, but essentially so. Rather than arising from personal schemes or collective ideals, morality flows from the very nature of things.

I propose an idealist ontology that makes sense of reality in a more parsimonious and empirically rigorous manner than mainstream physicalism, bottom-up panpsychism, and cosmopsychism. The proposed ontology also offers more explanatory power than these three alternatives, in that it does not fall prey to the hard problem of consciousness, the combination problem, or the decombination problem, respectively. It can be summarized as follows: there is only cosmic consciousness. We, as well as all other living organisms, are but dissociated alters (...) of cosmic consciousness, surrounded by its thoughts. The inanimate world we see around us is the extrinsic appearance of these thoughts. The living organisms we share the world with are the extrinsic appearances of other dissociated alters. (shrink)

This article defends the principle of sufficient reason (PSR) from a simple and direct valid argument according to which PSR implies that there is a truth that explains every truth, namely an omni-explainer. Many proponents of PSR may be willing to bite the bullet and maintain that, if PSR is true, then there is an omni-explainer. I object to this strategy by defending the principle that explanation is irreflexive. Then I argue that proponents of PSR can resist the conclusion that (...) there is an omni-explainer by denying that explanation distributes over conjunction. In the final section, I consider a plausible revision of this assumption. I argue there that, given the revised assumption, PSR seems to yield a striking picture of the explanatory structure of the universe. I explain why the resulting model does not appear utterly implausible to me. (shrink)

The universe of computer simulations is vast, flourishing in almost every scientific discipline, and still resisting a general conceptualization. From the early computations of the Moon’s orbit carried out by punched card machines, to the most recent attempts to simulate quantum states, computer simulations have a uniquely short but very rich history.

The aim of this doctoral dissertation is to closely explore the nature of Einstein’s block universe and to tease out its implications for the nature of time and human freedom. Four questions, in particular, are central to this dissertation, and set out the four dimensions of this philosophical investigation: (1) Does the block universe view of time follow inevitably from the theory of special relativity? (2) Is there room for the passage of time in the block universe? (...) (3) Can we distinguish past from future in the block universe? (4) Is there room for human freedom in the block universe? Although the answer of most philosophers would be yes, triple no, my own answer, controversially, is no, triple yes. -/- I thereby challenge the status quo with respect to each of these metaphysical questions, and argue that none of these questions can be answered from looking at physics alone. Physics may constrain our metaphysics, but it certainly does not settle it. What is needed in order to answer these questions, are additional metaphysical assumptions that fall outside the scope of modern physics. My primary goal in this dissertation, therefore, is not to settle the debates on the nature of time and human freedom, but to clarify them by expliciting the metaphysical assumptions that are otherwise left implicit. (shrink)

It is plausible that the universe exists: a thing such that absolutely everything is a part of it. It is also plausible that singular, structured propositions exist: propositions that literally have individuals as parts. Furthermore, it is plausible that for each thing, there is a singular, structured proposition that has it as a part. Finally, it is plausible that parthood is a partial ordering: reflexive, transitive, and anti-symmetric. These plausible claims cannot all be correct. We canvass some costs of (...) denying each claim and conclude that parthood is not a partial ordering. Provided that the relevant entities exist, parthood is not anti-symmetric and proper parthood is neither asymmetric nor transitive. (shrink)

The Universe is Expanding focuses on how assisted reproduction was made usable for the biomedical community, a process that resulted in the growth of the field as well as in the field’s robustness. The chapter traces the increase in the number of practitioners, clinics, procedures, uses, and users, as well as the consolidation of the field as mostly focused on assisted reproductive technologies, the establishment of a specific sort of clinic as the site where the field is practised, the (...) construction of a self imposed normative framework, and the emergence of an international networked community of practitioners. (shrink)

Modern physics is built on the assumption that time only moves one way, beginning at the initial boundary (or initial condition), fixed effectively at the Big Bang. Our theories begin at that starting point and evolve from there. Yet the laws of nature work both forward and backward. This one-way view lies at the root of many of physics’ biggest puzzles, like wavefunction collapse, quantum “spookiness,” the arrow of time, and the clash between quantum mechanics and relativity. Two-Boundary Theory (2BT) (...) proposes a minimal correction: the universe is a unique four-dimensional history jointly constrained by two real temporal boundaries, an initial (α) and a final (Ω). No new dynamics or hidden variables are added; the same lawful evolution operates in both directions, and the realized world is the intersection of the forward image of α with the backward image of Ω. From within time, partial knowledge of α and ignorance of Ω make outcomes appear stochastic and the future “open,” though the underlying history is globally deterministic and locally causal. This two-sided admissibility resolves the major paradoxes in a single move: Bell-level correlations arise from whole-trajectory consistency rather than superluminal influence; measurement collapse becomes an epistemic update, not a physical jump; and the arrow of time reflects asymmetric boundary information, not asymmetric law. The analysis preserves unitarity, covariance, and conservation principles intact. The paper confines itself to the conceptual and ontological core of the framework; later work develops the informational field Φ(t) and weighted-operator formalism that implement the same constraint mathematically. The result is an Ockham-minimal, time-symmetric completion of the scientific worldview: one reversible law, two boundaries, one consistent universe. (shrink)

The Universe: A Complete Proof from the Result — Formal Proof of Jia Baolong's First Axiom of the Universe -/- Description "I am lying." -/- Four words. One self-referential paradox. The universe contains it. The contrapositive: without it, no universe. This paper takes that single logical fact and derives — step by step, using only standard published results — the entire structure of reality: true randomness, the arrow of time, chaos, fractal geometry, self-organized criticality, physical law, (...) life, consciousness, and the undecidability of observers. -/- No physics is assumed. No cosmological model. No fine-tuning. No creator. Just logic unfolding upon itself. -/- The derivation is closed: it begins with self-reference and ends with entities capable of self-reference. The universe is its own proof. The author's initials — J.B.L. — encode the three structural necessities (Jarring/Self-Reference, Being/Entity-Relation, Lazy/Lazy Evaluation). Destiny or coincidence? Read the paper and you will understand. -/- The universe is a fractal chaos system generated by self-referential paradox. Humanity is one of its strange attractors. The Planck scale is 17 orders of magnitude below our smallest known particles. The old approach — drilling downward from phenomena toward point zero — should be maintained by a small team. The main force should march upward. -/- Jia Baolong's First Law of the Universe is the singularity law that opens a new era for humanity — and the slamming door of the old one. -/- Keywords self-referential paradox, Jia Baolong's First Axiom, formal proof, universe derivation, self-reference, SR+ER+LE, Gödel incompleteness, true randomness, deterministic chaos, fractal geometry, self-organized criticality, emergence, consciousness, undecidability, medium-free computation, Lazy Evaluation, strange attractor, Planck scale, closed emergence loop, singularity law -/- Additional Metadata Author: Jia, Baolong (贾宝龙) -/- Affiliation: Independent Researcher · Meta-Architect -/- Language: English, Chinese (Simplified) -/- Related Identifiers DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19245000 — "Jia Baolong's First Law of the Universe: The Absolute Dual-Paradigm Axiomatic Foundation Unifying Mathematics, Physics, Computer Science, Cognitive Science, and Philosophy" -/- DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19224995 — "The Closed Emergence Loop: From Medium-Free Computation Through Fractal Chaos to Gödelian Consciousness" -/- DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19209458 — "The Nature of the Universe: A Medium-Free Computation Fractal Chaos System Based on Self-Reference Paradoxes" -/- DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19225000 — "Prove You, Regardless of Your Existence: On the Absolute Equivalence of Extraterrestrial Intelligence and Human Capability" -/- DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19164695 — "The Logical Universe: Physics as a Rendering Artifact of Pure Logical Networks" -/- 中文版 标题 宇宙:从结果出发的全证明 — 贾宝龙宇宙第一公理形式化证明 -/- 简介 "我在说谎。" -/- 四个字。一个自指悖论。宇宙包含它。逆否:没有它,没有宇宙。本文从这一个逻辑事实出发,仅使用已发表的标准数学和物理结果,一步一步推导出现实的全部结构:真随机、时间之箭、混沌、分形几何、自组织临界态、物理 定律、生命、意识,以及观测者的不可判定性。 -/- 不假设任何物理。不需要宇宙学模型。不需要精细调控。不需要造物主。只有逻辑在自身之上展开。 -/- 推导是闭合的:始于自指,终于能够自指的实体。宇宙是它自身的证明。作者姓名的首字母——J.B.L.——恰好编码了三个结构必然性(假/自指、保/局面、龙/惰性求值)。天意还是巧合?读完全文就明白。 -/- 宇宙是由自指悖论生成的分形混沌系统。人类是其中的奇异吸引子之一。普朗克尺度距人类已知最小基本粒子还有17个数量级。从现象往0点探寻的旧路——保留一支小分队就够了。大队伍应该往上走。 -/- 贾宝龙宇宙第一法则,是人类开启新时代的奇点法则,也是旧时代的关门撞击声。 -/- 精彩的人生,和谐的世界。 -/- 我因母国而荣耀。 -/- 关键词 自指悖论、贾宝龙第一公理、形式化证明、宇宙推导、自指、SR+ER+LE、哥德尔不完备性、真随机、确定性混沌、分形几何、自组织临界态、涌现、意识、不可判定性、无介质计算、延迟展开、奇异吸引子、普朗克尺度 、闭合涌现环路、奇点法则 -/- . (shrink)

The Open Universe is the centerpiece of the argument of the Postscript.

Neither eternalism nor standard presentism captures both all of the tenets of Special Relativity and our observation that the universe is dynamic. A three-dimensional universe of dynamic, space-like separated particles captures both. Although three-dimensionalism contemplates no spatially extended present, it is not solipsism because the things we see on our past light cones endure in some form. The ontology of a dynamic, three-dimensional universe allows us to quantify the rate at which time elapses as a function of (...) the rate at which photons recede in vacuo. It is shown that intuitive ideas related to elapse of time that are argued by others to be philosophical dead ends in an eternalist block universe find ready explanation in a dynamic, three-dimensional universe. (shrink)

This paper argues that time and motion are ontologically identical as aspects of change: what physics calls “time” is a parameterization of motion rather than an independent entity. Drawing on phenomenology (Kant, Husserl, McTaggart), cognitive science, and physics (Einstein, Rovelli), it distinguishes lived temporality—dependent on consciousness—from the causal order of events, which exists without it. Historically, the split between time and motion (from Aristotle to Newton) reflects a conceptual error; by reframing time as a perspectival map of motion, the paper (...) aligns Leibniz’s relational view with modern theories of emergent time in quantum gravity. This unified framework challenges temporal realism and offers a phenomenological reinterpretation of change for both philosophy and physics. (shrink)

We contrast two Universe-outlooks and universality-sources. The first—localism—runs bottom-up and is in the vein of modern iterative set theory, generating ever more sets but all limited unities and barring an ur-Universe taken as a primary—the prime-object/unity. This contrasts with an absolutely infinite Universe-first outlook, globalism, inspired by some remarks on Cantor but later exiled by Zermelo. The metaphysics is now all top-down, and all sets (e.g. large cardinals) are regarded as generated fragments. The role of the (Godel-central) (...) reflection principle is dissected.? (shrink)

The Well-Ordered Universe argues that Cavendish's natural philosophy, social and political philosophy, and medical theory share an underlying concern with order. This reveals interesting connections among Cavendish's natural philosophy and her views on gender, animals and the environment, and human health, and explains her commitment to monarchy and social hierarchy.