I'm glad that i'm not making bold statements! On the contrary -here I make a very simple statement and that's the point. Sentient well-being is inherently valuable and infinitely more valuable than anything non-sentient. What I'm trying to prove is that this necessary truth is/should be more causally effective than anything else as far as limiting the expressions of reality.

Valuable to whom? I could imagine a sentient robot with no value on well-being. Value being place on well being is simply an evolutionary byproduct.

This seemingly came out of left field, and isn't intuitive.

As a mentioned earlier, logical laws far outweigh your "necessary well being truth" as far as limiting the expressions of reality.

Imo, I said it best in my original statement. I didn't want to present a rigorous logical proof, but an intuitively appealing idea.

I'm sorry, but an "intuitively appealing idea" counts for exactly nothing.

I won't clarify anything more. I'll be content to see if anyone finds this notion compelling. I never set out to complete a rigorous proof.

Sentient well-being is inherently valuable and infinitely more valuable than anything non-sentient

How is this a universal truth? Valuable to whom? What is your criteria for being valuable? What's an example of something that's not valuable?

The universe optimizing for the creation of paper clips would be infinitely less valuable. Value presupposes a receiver. Nothing is meaningful when not related to a sentient being. I find this to be completely obvious.

My post is partially a reply to some people's notion that our quest for universal well-being is somehow counter-balanced by aspects of reality that don't adhere to it. For example - some people believe that one man's happiness is another's misfortune. I want to point out that if the universe has such a limitation, it must be completely arbitrary, whereas the inherent value of universal well being is a necessary truth that in my mind is likely to have sufficient causal efficiency even if it's not apparent to us right now.

You might have guessed that I already subscribe to a rather optimistic and unorthodox theology. But that is besides the point.

The point is that it should be obvious that reality's only or primary limitation should be sentient well-being. I'm just making a step further by proposing that not only it should be, but it probably is. We just don't find it overly apparent as of yet.
I've made my case in the OP.

derrida2.0.png

Then you need to open your mind because this isn't obvious to me, at least. If you want there to be a meaningful discussion of your ideas, then you will have to be at least a little more rigorous because as is, I'm finding your statements to be somewhere between not true and just devoid of meaning.

You probably want to study up on the Anthropic principle OP.

Craig writes: The Anthropic Principle
This pattern of discoveries has compelled many scientists to conclude that such a delicate balance cannot be simply dismissed as coincidence, but requires some sort of account. Traditionally, such considerations would have been taken as evidence of divine design--one thinks of Paley's teleological argument in his Natural Theology, for example. Loath to admit the God-hypothesis, however, many scientists are seeking an alternative in the Anthropic Principle, and a tremendous debate involving both scientists and philosophers has broken out concerning this principle, a debate which has spilled over into the popular press and captured the attention of science-minded laymen. The attempt to come to grips with the appearance of cosmic teleology has forced many scientists beyond physics into meta-physics, so that the boundaries between science and philosophy have become ineradicably blurred, well-illustrating George Gale's remark that "we are now entering a phase of scientific activity during which the physicist has out-run his philosophical base-camp, and, finding himself cut off from conceptual supplies, he is ready and waiting for some relief from his philosophical comrades-in-arms."{4} The theistic philosopher can therefore without apology or embarrassment introduce his metaphysical commitment to theism as an at least equally plausible, if not superior, alternative explanation to metaphysical, naturalistic accounts of the complex order of the universe.

THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT AND THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
Dr. William Lane Craig
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...ocs/teleo.html

Not even close to relevant. You guys disappoint me.

Yep, everyone else is misguided. Or perhaps you're just doing a terrible job of supporting your conclusions (or even explaining them).

Disagree. Do you just really try your hardest to shut down every single idea that people share in this forum? I think you can find better ways to spend your time, and quite frankly you come off bitter in general. OP is kind enough to share a pretty reasonably well thought out concept and all you can say is "it counts for nothing" and basically berate him. How bout, "cool thoughts, but I'm not sure if this can lead anywhere for me". It's called respect. He gave a disclaimer in the OP saying he couldn't prove it and he didn't, why is that a problem for you?

Intuitively, I believe your argument is a good supposition. Thanks for sharing. I've sometimes thought about 'more arbitrary' possibilities for the reason our world provides the circumstances for the existence of life (purpose on any level you'd like to define), such as 'life evolves for something else's amusement', or 'life evolves just to produce carbon dioxide', but typically the most basic answers are often the right ones.

To take it a step further - What if the conditions of the uni/multiverse are set to provide the right circumstances for life and evolution; with the end 'goal' (for lack of a better word) being the evolution of a particular species to the point that they can create their own universe on another scale. Then the universe could replicate itself in that sense. Maybe a little out there but just throwing that one out so COME AT ME BROS.

I do find the notion in OP compelling. You got one!

Hence the reason why your OP is being bashed ITT.