There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

[Skepdick]

There are different universes?

Sure. The universes of possibilities.

In Universe A you ought to pay your taxes.
in Universe B you ought not pay your taxes.

Which universe are you in?

[Terrapin Station]

There are different universes?

Sure. The universes of possibilities.

In Universe A you ought to pay your taxes.
in Universe B you ought not pay your taxes.

Which universe are you in?

Possibilities are all in the same universe.

Whether you ought to pay your taxes is up to you, what you desire, etc. This includes what you desire re the consequences that are likely, of course. There are no facts that you should prefer one set of circumstances over another.

[Skepdick]

Possibilities are all in the same universe.

Really. So where do the multiple possibilities exist?


Where does the possibility of you paying your taxes exist?
Where does the possibility of you not paying your taxes exist?

Which possibility is "the case"?

Whether you ought to pay your taxes is up to you, what you desire, etc. This includes what you desire re the consequences that are likely, of course. There are no facts that you should prefer one set of circumstances over another.

There are are universes in which one prefers A over B, and there are universes where one prefers B over A.

Which universe are you in?

[Terrapin Station]

Possibilities are all in the same universe.

Really. So where do the multiple possibilities exist?

Possibilities don't exist "as somethings." They obtain via the simple fact that something isn't impossible (whether metaphysically/ontologically or logically or whatever).

Where does the possibility of you paying your taxes exist?

So that's not "something that exists per se." There's a possibility of paying your taxes simply due to the fact that it's not impossible to pay them. That's all that means. "It's something that can happen, because nothing prohibits it from happening."

There's only one universe.

[Skepdick]

Possibilities don't exist "as somethings." They obtain via the simple fact that something isn't impossible (whether metaphysically/ontologically or logically or whatever).

Logically everything is possible. Logic has no limits.

So that's not "something that exists per se." There's a possibility of paying your taxes simply due to the fact that it's not impossible to pay them. That's all that means. "It's something that can happen, because nothing prohibits it from happening."

There's only one universe.

If there's only one universe then there can't possibly be TWO possibilities, moron?

Either:

A. You ought to pay your taxes
B. You ought not pay your taxes.

Since neither of those is "metaphysically impossible" then only one of those must be the case.

Which one?

[Terrapin Station]

If there's only one universe then there can't possibly be TWO possibilities, moron?

lol there wouldn't be possibilities in any universe then, aside from whatever turns out to happen. But that's not the case.

[Skepdick]

lol there wouldn't be possibilities in any universe then, aside from whatever turns out to happen. But that's not the case.

It isn't the case?

What else do you think happens beside what actually happens?

[Peter Holmes]

Action X may have the unavoidable consequence Y. And that fact has no moral implication whatsoever. Whether anyone ought to want consequence Y, and therefore ought to do action X, is a matter of opinion - unlike the action-consequence connection, which isn't.

[Terrapin Station]

lol there wouldn't be possibilities in any universe then, aside from whatever turns out to happen. But that's not the case.

It isn't the case?

What else do you think happens beside what actually happens?

It's that other things could happen than turn out to happen. That's what possibilities are.

[Skepdick]

Action X may have the unavoidable consequence Y. And that fact has no moral implication whatsoever.

In Universe A it has moral implications.
In Universe B it has no moral implications.

How do you know which universe you are in?

Whether anyone ought to want consequence Y

In Universe C one ought to want consequence Y.
In Universe D one ought not want consequence Y.

, and therefore ought to do action X

In universe E one ought to do action X.
In universe F one ought not do action X.

, is a matter of opinion - unlike the action-consequence connection, which isn't.

If it's a matter of opinion, then why do you hold the opinion that you hold and not some other opinion?

[Skepdick]

It's that other things could happen than turn out to happen. That's what possibilities are.

If other things could happen why don't they?

[Terrapin Station]

In Universe A it has moral implications.
In Universe B it has no moral implications.

You can just say, "It could be the case that it has moral implications, and it could be the case that it doesn't. How do we know which is the case?"

The way we know that is that there's nothing intelligible that moral implications could amount to for which there's any evidence with respect to facts.

[Terrapin Station]

It's that other things could happen than turn out to happen. That's what possibilities are.

If other things could happen why don't they?

It's just a brute fact about how the world works. Some things don't obtain, but they could have, because nothing prohibited them from obtaining prior to whatever obtained.

[Skepdick]

You can just say, "It could be the case that it has moral implications, and it could be the case that it doesn't. How do we know which is the case?"

I can and I am saying it. What's to stop me?

The way we know that is that there's nothing intelligible that moral implications could amount to for which there's any evidence with respect to facts.

So the way you've conceptualised "moral facts" is such that there can be no evidence for them? Whose fault is that?

Why don't you conceptualise them in a way that they could be tested?

[Terrapin Station]

So the way you've conceptualised "moral facts" is such that there can be no evidence for them? Whose fault is that?

Why don't you conceptualise them in a way that they could be tested?

It doesn't hinge on my conceptualization. What is your suggestion where there would be empirical evidence for it?