crafn

It is, thank you! That, among some other minor stuff, will be fixed shortly. (Version 1.01, same url)

It's true I haven't, because there is no universal set. You probably mean the set of universe descriptions. It has no requirement on being "universal". It is filled with appropriate scenarios that one wishes to examine. If you wish to fill it with infinite amount of universe descriptions, you can do it. And you can distinguish between true and necessarily true with the machinery presented on the first page of my proof. (If the extension of a proposition is the whole universe set, then it's necessarily true, otherwise not). There is even an example of this feature (example 2). Furthermore, the distinction between true and necessarily true is irrelevant for the proof. No "set theory for ethical systems" is being used. The set theory I'm relying on is pretty well established; It's the most common foundation of mathematics, ZFC. This will be my last answer for you, because the gap of disconnect does not seem to be closing after three posts.

Could you be more specific? Which line in which definition or proof is wrong in what situation? They're numbered for this exact reason. I don't see at all how your claim about the possibility of finite set containing infinite set (which is true), is relevant. I don't understand your third sentence. There is no need or attempt to describe "all the finite sets". You're imposing your own definition of universal on the proof, which has its own, very narrow definition of universality (the universality condition). This is irrelevant. I've taken look at S5 modal logic superficially. I don't how that would help in proving universal and objective ethics at all. I'll dismiss your claims until you show how much easier it's to not bother with sets and use S5 instead to prove universal ethics in simpler terms and in less than 5 pages. I have to wonder, do you understand my proof, or are you just talking?

Finite sets makes some things easier to understand and write down. All of the proofs should be essentially identical with infinite sets. The universality condition works with finite and infinite sets -- I don't know what you mean.

Hello everyone, you might remember me from last year: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46766-mathematical-aid-for-upb-based-ethics/ I've finally managed to define UPB in exact terms and verify the most important conclusions of it rigorously. Here's A formal proof of universal and objective ethics. Disclaimer: This proof has not been reviewed or confirmed by anyone other than me. It most likely contains minor errors, but since the result is mathematically simple and intuitive, I would be surprised if a major flaw in the math was found. However, I suggest to take it with a grain of salt at this point. While this paper may not be important or persuasive for the ordinary person, I believe it's the most heavyweight intellectual firepower that can exist in support of universal and objective ethics. I'll be happy to hear comments, corrections and objections. Related note: When one understands the 5-page proof, he must conclude that the verbal proof presented in the UPB book contains assertions and paths of reasoning that are not required by, or included in the formal proof. To take an example, claims such as "No moral theory can be valid if it argues that a certain action is right in Syria, but wrong in San Francisco." or "The moral proposition “eating fish is evil” thus fails the test of universality because it is too specific --" are not made in the formal proof. This kind of generality of moral rules is not required to prove the validity of universal and objective ethics. In fact, I have no clue how to define the generality of a proposition in non-arbitrary terms. I do not understand the book well enough to show that this excessivity would be incorrect, or even undesirable, but the fact that it took me over a year of mental wrestling and dozens of retries in the conceptual weeds of UPB to understand what I believe is the essence of it, may suggest otherwise. With the lack of arguments, this is not a critique, but a heads-up, that the current verbal argument may not be presented in a clear and condensed form (which the formal proof is also not, for most people.)

No, the logic holds at all times, because it is independent of time. This means that preferences changing and events taking place, as in your example, are irrelevant to the logic. The claim you argued against is not part of my argument, so I won't to go further to your example.

I'm addressing only this part of your post, because I don't see how the rest is connected to the logical argument. "I wish to be coerced" is the self-contradiction in "People should be controlled with coersion." A subject of coersion can't prefer the coersion, because coersion is involuntary by definition. If e.g. the coercive act of theft is accepted by the subject, it's no longer theft, but charity. If this deduction falls apart I'll be glad to hear it, but it won't fall apart with further (unrelated) arguments, because justifications can't break logic. That's my experience too. I like these kind of short arguments which make little assumptions besides logic. Not having to explain UPB or show a bunch of evidence to debunk an argument is a nice thing.

My wording probably didn't match my intent too well. Let's fix that, and say the definition of violence includes some voluntary acts, like masochism. Then I'll change my wording from "violence" to "involuntary violence" or "coercion" or "the initiation of force", and the argument seems to hold. Correct? I'm not quite sure what you mean. The point of the internal contradiction is that the statement "People should be governed" makes as much sense as "You should head north and south simultaneously", if the deduction is correct. Not specifying a moral context makes the argument stronger, because then it applies in every context.

I got this idea recently, and don't recall hearing before, although it's probably not original. Here goes the reasoning. "People should be governed" A person stating this means that people should have something like government and laws, so the original statement translates to "People should be controlled with violence." The presenter is a person, so the previous implies "I should be controlled with violence." This directly implies "A person subjected to violence can prefer the violence" This is a contradiction, because by definition, violence is not preferred by the subject. Therefore the statement "People should be governed" is a contradiction in terms. Therefore taking the position "People should be governed" is irrational. This is so simple, but immensely strong result, that I doubt it's true. Any ideas what could be wrong with the argument?

So you're arguing that the neutral moral status of the island man is a problem with UPB? I'd be fine with that, at least in this thread, as it's a question separate to my formulation which tries to work in the realm of UPB. Of course, if you figure out how to formulate your idea of a more correct moral classification, I'd be interested to see it

What does UPB say about the desert island then? I was under the impression that a man on a desert island can't be either good nor evil, because he doesn't have a choice whether to e.g. murder or not. And everything where he has a choice is a voluntary act by definition, because it only involves himself. I'll be happy to be corrected, if that's incorrect

Thanks! Hmm, I don't know what you mean by "good in regards to self", because every voluntary act is in the neutral category (which includes aesthetically loaded behavior in the paper). Would also need to think a bit how the target of an action should be denoted, now it's baked into the preference. But I don't see any immediate problems with preference pairs like (P1, P1)...

Yeah, I get that. My problem with common language is that when I e.g. sit in a lecture I often find myself thinking that I've understood something. Afterwards, when I take the math out I find that I actually have understood only some superficial thing, and spend now hours and hours thinking how to fit the math pieces together and adjust my common language concepts to the unforgivable logic. Had the same experience with this. The point is that the math is connected to these concepts like action and preference which have not been defined in any way rigorous, which of course leads to problems when trying to deal with grey area situations. Sloppy language, but shouldn't affect the overall logical structure there. That could be useful if I ever feel the need to make the thing more rigorous

Hello all Going through Stefan's book and videos about UPB didn't make me too confident, but the idea of a "scientific method for ethics" is so compelling that I decided to examine it more. So I did what any theoretical physics student would do to understand something better, establish a mathematical structure enclosing it. After a few failed attempts I got something working, which seems to reproduce the conclusions of UPB, here: http://crafn.kapsi.fi/data/upb_latest.pdf I'm posting this so that someone can shoot my reasoning down, or maybe even find some insight or evidence for UPB, as I did.