#notsowise

The baseline: a universe contains all information inside of it. With all the information I mean from the beginning to the end of the universe, when there is one. We consider every single moment. A moment is the smallest downgrade of time that is possible. Means a moment is basically infinitely close to zero while not being zero. A universe contains subsets. The subsets are all the information for one moment. So even when the universe doesn't contain infinite information. We will have infinite moments of finite information. So a universe is a set containing infinite subsets with finite information. Making the cardinality infinity.

Now consider a multiverse containing every possible universe, speaking every possible set.

And here comes my thought: what about an empty universe, speaking of an empty set. What would be the properties of this universe? Would it be an endless list of empty sets? Or is the universe itself an empty set. How does this universe handle time. Is there even time if nothing changes? Can an empty universe even exist?

Now that's out of the way. Morals of level 2. The morals for a person who's well established in society and has reached a stable position, but who isn't a ruler, or in any specific position of power. A everyday person.

Congrats you reached level 2! Ready for responsibilities? No? Sadly you have to deal with them. As a person who has no danger in losing its place in society your first and foremost responsibility is to help those who are less fortunate than you if you have the time and resources to do so. It doesn't necessarily need to be something big, just donating for a good cause would be enough. Besides that I would say for most of the time your morals should be defined by intention as the outcome for things which matter are too big for yourself to control. Do good because you think the action is good itself even without knowing its outcome.

For the person of the second level I would just recommend Kant's moral philosophy. I think it excells at every day stuff.

Or does it? Because I would allow one exception: White lies. Kant values the truth above everything else. But we all know lying is polite. Also if a small lie would protect people, you're allowed to lie. But you will never be allowed to lie for personal gain.

And yes it may seem I contradict myself, which I probably do, but hey the human itself is a being which contradicts itself all the time (if wanted I will do an episode why this is so).

The morals of a beggar. A beggar clearly is part of society and therefore has the obligation to be morally good or develop morals, but he isn't in a stable position. Such a person's first priority should be to stabilise the position by means that can be justified. A beggar has a minimum of morals to uphold, but you wouldn't expect self sacrificing acts from him. If he steals, he will do it out of necessity and not bad will. Of course he will try everything to fit your standards of morals, but he knows he can't always meet them. For such a person the outcome and the intention more or less match. He does something that he has in mind for the reasons of being alive, and being alive shouldn't be a crime neither should be the wish of being alive a crime. The beggar is aware that stealing is bad (generally), he will probably feel guilty, but he also knows he'd regret it far more to die. So please let us excuse him for his unfortunate position and let us help him stabilise his position so that he won't have the need anymore to steal.

On the first level you're aware of your mortality and morality. You know exactly what is right and wrong, but I think the life given is far more precious than being good as people who are far more fortunate than oneself. I excuse these people because I know I wouldn't choose different in their position. And I think feeling bad is a punishment enough for them. Of course the wrongness is only justified when they have no other choice (active) and it either leads directly to a stabilisation or their immediate survival. For example killing for food wouldn't be allowed, but secretly stealing it maybe more.

So I propose the different levels of morals, but shouldn't there be one framework made for everyone? No, why? Life is different for everyone, saying you found one way how everyone should live is presumptuous and you're basically saying you're in an all-knowing position for your philosophy, which is the biggest mistake one could make. Why? Because your philosophy doesn't allow change, you basically say you and your philosophy is perfected in itself, which is further disregarding the fact that something like the human, who is imperfect by nature, can neither become perfect nor can create something perfect. Every philosophy should follow one thing and that is self growth.

Back to my track. So we have different levels. What could be the lowest? Who could be moral? Animals? No we wouldn't enforce our ideas to beings who can't really comprehend good and evil. So Humans? But would you enforce morals to every human? The human is originally an animal, the human wasn't born with morals, but with the ability to make them. The human is, following this statement, naturally not moral, but possesses the ability to change this and become moral and create morals.

Still morals will only then be formed if the human himself lives in a big enough society to have the need to develop morals. A human without society has no need for morals, a hermit, who doesn't care about life outside his world of wilderness and who doesn't interact with any other humans, has no need to have rules to interact with other humans.

So the first step (or level) to morals is society. So we can decide the level of morals on the standing of one person in the society itself.

These are the words of a hypocrite pretending to be better knowing how worse he is. He sees no chance for anyone. He knows changing himself will lead to nothing if the spirit of humankind doesn't change. If we still only think for our own goals, if we still only care about our own good, if I put myself before the herd, nobody will be safe. Humanity has to learn that they're one folk, no matter who one person is. They are human and that's enough. If they put themselves before humanity, I won't call them human anymore. Will you join me in my revolution of mind? Will you stand by my side and stop your nature of hate?

We start our journey with one thought. Imagine a being which is omnipotent and omniscient. Alone this makes it a cosmic horror. I fear knowing everything, because everything has a cardinality of infinity. Yes you could argue that you don't know everything every time, you can just access infinite knowledge at every moment, but that is the soft version. I take the hard version. So now we created a being which is able to do anything while knowing everything at every moment. They know what you did in the dark, they know your darkest secrets. That's terrifying. And even further they could have erased you for your sins already. But no they haven't. You live in the grace of something you can't comprehend. You can't argue with it.

The next step is the benevolence. If the entity was just passive, not caring, because their omniscience surely hurts, but hey they're omnipotent so they could just make the pain go away, would be one thing. The thing with a being which is infinitely greater than you loving you, is that they looked at our insignificant existence and said, yes those guys are it. We are it, but why, they surely know, we will never. They have knowledge we may never have.

Back to the omnipotence. Omnipotence implies that they exist outside of what we call the universe, outside of everything we need to make sense. They surely aren't bound by time. It is the only way they can be before time was a thing. I don't know the power scale tiering systems, but I'd think they're useless, because a truly omnipotent being can't be put into categories, it defies them.

We fear the unknown, so why not fear an entity which is unexplainable to us and could be doing anything. They say because it loves us. This is just a fool talking, because the truth would destroy us all. We are just a single data point in the face of eternity. We are temporarily here. We won't exist forever. But we still say there is a god, eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing and hopefully all good too. But I, I dare to address not only the elephant in the room, but also its herd. You believers cope. You cope with being unable to save yourself. You should start to trust your own abilities. But that's beside the point.

Summarised we have now thought of an entity which could do anything, knows everything, somit could possibly judge us and loves us with no seemingly good reason. And we decided to put our faith in it. Furthermore if we accept the idea of infinite universes, which represent all possibilities our universe could have unfolded. They wouldn't have a god the same as ours, no we already said god exists outside spacetime, well I said outside our universe, so god is in every timeline, but is this entity's love in every single universe? Maybe? God may or may not love us in this universe, but in another? There you have it, god may love you here, but somewhere else god may torture you. This uncertainty is true fear. The fear of being the only version of yourself which is lucky.

We have thought of love, but created a cosmic horror.