The longing of the spirit can never be stilled. – Hildegard von Bingen

A reality comprised of conscious agents more likely evolved them than not. In fact, a reality with agency, insofar as appears known, only evolves agency rather than the reverse. Charles Darwin provided the baseline principles in Evolution via Natural Selection.

When a reality exists and evolves consciousness, two premises exist as assumptions. One comes from the fact of existence. Reality exists in a sufficient manner as to garner a concretized form of realness.

At a minimum, to the conscious agents in it, the reality feels concrete, material, physical, actual, tangible, or somatic, so existentially real. Another emerges from the term “evolves.” Behind it, one needs time. A sequential progression of linked moments creating existence’s directionality.

In standard terminology, this gets called the Arrow of Time. Time moves forwards, not backwards. If living in a reverse universe, the real backwards would seem as if forwards. In either case, time exhibits directionality, hence an “Arrow.” It points one way, not both.

With modern science, empiricism, and mathematical derivations, we come to the tentative and evidenced conclusions of a world with moments as non-absolute, as statistical, as a series of moments only at the macro scale.

A macro scale world with the Arrow of Time. A large-scale existence with directionality in time while, at bottom, a series of statistically or probabilistically connected moments with implied pasts in each moment and potential futures.

The instantiation of each moment implies a history and constrains an open future. With “implied pasts in each moment and potential futures,” this means ‘once upon a times’ lead to the ‘here-and-now’ while eventuating only a select grouping of ‘there-and-thens.’

The fact of existence and the truth of time become points of reference in consideration of a reality with conscious agents. Those operators in existence with agency, consciousness. Conscious aspects of consciousness as the mentation of the operations, the system.

Consciousness, as rich, diverse, and deeply interconnected networks of natural information processing devoted to an agentic arena of processing and selection, seems to emerge, evolve, later in reality rather than in some incomprehensibly early stage of the lifecycle of reality.

Non-conscious consciousness as the filter of the natural information derived from interpreted reality through the ‘senses’ or the external nodes — e.g., tactile, olfactory, auditory, gustatory, or visual, informational structures.

Those delivered — e.g., afferent-efferent nerve pathways — to conscious consciousness for selection, choice. It appears through evolutionary selective processes rather than creative teleological operations, whether instantaneous or progressive.

Some environmental, psychological, sexual, and social, selective pressures formulate the ‘need’ for some centralization of information processing. A conscious arena to manipulate the information gathered from the environment and generated internal to the system.

Entities, agents, thinking and moving in a reality define ethics; the principles governing the thought and behaviour define the morality. In that, the fact of being in reality of an agent comprises the ethics.

In this sense, ethics becomes non-absolute too. As the complete nature and existence of the agent defines its morality, agency internal to the system becomes the generativity of the ethical constructs themselves.

Thus, with existence and time, agency and morality, the qualitative difference becomes the next consideration of the speculation. Agents with an ethic tilted more towards directives of annihilation will cease to exist, eventually and even instantaneously.

Entities with a morality tilted more towards directives of creation will continue to exist. Both based on principles of reasoning grounded in statistical or probabilistic considerations of the matters of existence, time, agency, morality, and annihilation/creation.

Once the principles of reasoning construct the Statistical Argument for Existence, the Statistical Argument for Temporality, the Statistical Argument for Agency, and the Statistical Argument for Morality, these can become the bases for the principles of existence as a generalized truism set.

A philosophy of truism as a basis for principles not laws, loose rules not divine decrees. Those which can’t not be; those distinct significations of existence as principles demarcating unique markers of reality sufficient to become a novel variant. Everything coupled together.

The apparent metaphysical matters of ethics do not come with this presentation. The ideas of morality or ethics acquire this stain due to the theological and religious, i.e., transcendentalist, poundings of the previous centuries.

Only the last couple to recent few centuries began to wash the cloth and refresh the minds, as if cool water on the face on a hot, arid day. No need for the necessary metaphysical, except in other considerations properly deemed non-theological, perhaps theosophical — as in an utter rejection of theology.

Annihilation and creation may appear tighter definitions of the more generalized terms disorder and order, respectively. The principles of the morality of “annihilation” as “disorder” and the ethics of “creation” as “order.”

Thus, “Agents with an ethic tilted more towards directives of annihilation will cease to exist, eventually and even instantaneously” translates as “agents with an ethic tilted more towards directives of disorder will cease to exist, eventually and even instantaneously.”

“Entities with a morality tilted more towards directives of creation will continue to exist” translates as “entities with a morality tilted more towards directives of order will continue to exist.”

The “agents” or “entities” as conscious operators whose being or complete manifestation in reality dispose to the disorder generating & maintaining or order generating and maintaining, whose total nature inclines more to annihilation or creation, respectively.

As with the statistical inevitability of existence, time, agency, and morality, the unavoidability of existence and time in existence attests to the order generation and maintenance of realities, probabilistically. They exist more than not; they last more than end.

The actuality of an order generation and maintenance in the domain of discourse relevant to facts grounded in existence and temporality for agency, as in the two base premises prior to the is/ought distinction, or the line drawn out, before.

Beings exist. By existing, beings equate to facts. Factual propositions exist about them. Substantive statements exist for them. Those premises about pieces of reality with evidenced content.

Beings with conscious consciousness, conscious entities, operators, or entities with property “agency.” If only one, this operator constructs value for their self and their environment. If more than one, these operators create value for their selves, their relations, and their environment.

A valuation of no value becomes a value, too. To some, their self, other selves, or the environment, don’t matter to them. To a sole inhabitant of a reality, to value itself at zero, it may self-murder/self-annihilate, this becomes an ethic, too. Ethics becomes inevitable.

Nihilism, as in no ethics whatsoever, becomes a failed stance in realities with agency. In that, with valuation, this influences actions in the world; hence, this amounts to the ethic, unavoidably. In degrees of affirmation/negation, it’s there. Thus, agency generates ethics.

The facts of reality must inform the values in reality with the facts as first matter and values as second matter, or facts as primary and values as secondary, not vice versa. Meaningful values discourse begins with factual morality, not moral facts.

The truth of order for existence, time, and (non-conscious and) conscious agents in the universe informs ethics, as agency generates ethics and facts inform morality. These agents follow the incline of the statistical tendencies of form and content of reality, or do not.

The “incline of the statistical tendencies of form and content of reality” meaning “the unavoidability of existence and time in existence attests to the order generation and maintenance of realities,” or a set of them.

An implied truth in order generation and maintenance as a baseline for existence and time, and for the fact of order generation and maintenance required for evolved agency. In turn, the values of agency, whether order disposed or disorder inclined, will require the same.

As the values come from agency, and as order generation and maintenance provide the baseline for existence and time, the values constructed by the agency’s being will exhibit the same forms of persistence as a statistical tendency and inevitability seen in existence, with time, and in agency.

The facts of reality evince persistence for existence, for temporality, for agency, for morality. The facts of order generation and maintenance for each as a probabilistic outcome of the sets of the possible and the favoured amongst the potential.

The values of operators in reality will tend to value order generation and maintenance for themselves, others, and the environment more than value disorder generation and maintenance for themselves, others, and the environment.

Therefore, the statistical tendency or statistical inevitability of morality/ethics, derived as a consequence of agency with a base of existence and time will internalize in mentation and externalize in action, towards valuation of order over disorder.

The value of order generation and maintenance by agency in reality as a reflective statistical consequent of the fact of realities manifesting as order generation and maintenance by the truth of existence, itself, existing.

Any agency valuing more disorder than order will cease to exist in time, eventually. In this, is/ought, as facts/values, exhibit a separation and a coupling with the persistence of reality and agency as then reflected in the tendency in values of agency towards order over disorder.

If islands of agency determine disorder more valuable than order, then the agency — itself, immediate others, and its environment — will cease existing in due time. Sufficient disorder ends agency. Thus, the ethics/morality of agency will become order disposed.

As stated in “Statistical Inevitability as a Cross-Sect of the Axiomatic, the Temporal, the Existential, and the Axiological”:

We come to the stream of statistical inevitabilities with statistical arguments for existence, temporality, agency, and morality.

If the set of possible universes remains larger than the set of null universes, then existence becomes statistically more probable. If existence becomes statistically more probable, then realities with more than one moment of time become statistically more probable than realities with only one moment of time.

If realities with more than one moment become statistically more probable than realities with only one moment of time, then one set will evolve conscious information processors and one set will not.

If conscious information processors evolve in one set of universes, and if morality/ethics define as “principles governing behaviour or conducting of an activity,” then evolving conscious information processors creates morality/ethics, because conscious information processors cerebrate/move or conduct activities.

If evolving conscious information processors creates morality/ethics, then ethics/morality becomes statistically inevitable in one set of universes. Thus, if the set of possible universes remains larger than the set of null universes, then ethics/morality becomes statistically inevitable in one set of universes.

The statistically probable occurrence of existence, of time, of agency, of ethics. If negated at any stage, the argument fails. If no existence, then no time, no agency, and no ethics; if existence and no time, then no agency and no ethics; if existence, time, and no agency, then no ethics; if existence, time, and agency, then ethics.

Ethics comes from agency. Agency comes from time. Time comes from existence. Existence separates from non-existence more likely than not. Is/ought remains preserved as separate ideas, but become coupled together.

Furthermore, if “ethics/morality becomes statistically inevitable in one set of universes,” then the persistence of existence, of time, of agency, will derivate a persistence in ethics/morality in reality, as ethics/morality comes from agency.

If the persistence of existence, of time, of agency, will derivate a persistence in ethics/morality in reality, then existence, time, agency, and ethics/morality exhibit order generation and maintenance.

If existence, time, agency, and ethics/morality exhibit order generation and maintenance, then the truth of reality, in existence, time, and agency, exhibits order generation and maintenance, as facts of the matter.

If the truth of reality, in existence, time, and agency, exhibits order generation and maintenance, then the values in reality reflect the truth of reality, in existence, time, and agency, exhibiting order generation and maintenance.

If values in reality reflect the truth of reality, in existence, time, and agency, exhibiting order generation and maintenance, then agency as manifest through operators in existence dispose more towards order than disorder.

If agency as manifest through operators in existence dispose more towards order than disorder, then the statistical tendency or unavoidability of ethics/morality of operators in existence disposed towards order generation and maintenance.

If the statistical tendency or unavoidability of ethics/morality of operators in existence dispose towards order generation and maintenance, then the probabilistic default of ethics/morality in existence as order generation and maintenance rather than disorder generation and maintenance.

Therefore, “if the set of possible universes remains larger than the set of null universes,” then the probabilistic default of ethics/morality in existence as order generation and maintenance rather than disorder generation and maintenance.

The inevitable, unavoidable, fact of existence, of time, of agency, of morality, of order, the real not only statistically exists and probabilistically becomes favoured to exist; its persistence becomes favoured as a property in the truth of reality and the values about reality.

Photo by NASA on Unsplash

Two conflicts common to North American sociopolitical discourse comes from the idea of rights as inherent in the nature of a human being qua a human being. If a human being, then you get rights. If a non-human animal, then you don’t get human rights.

Although, as with Peter Singer, you may get animal rights in some cases. In that, some argue for non-human animal rights. Even Leonardo da Vinci, he made direct statements about ethical treatment of animals without the necessary use of the language of rights.

However, as rights come as broad ethical principles, these become foundational. To personal sensibilities, realities with agency imply inevitable ethics. Thus, the age-old question about if ethics becomes moot.

Because the issue isn’t ethics or no ethics, moral system or none. The issue becomes, “What ethic?” It’s a profound difference based on a slight shift in emphasis. Similarly, transcendent ethics dominated before. Nihilism doesn’t work, as ethics only works without agency.

If a universe with agents, then ethics becomes an inevitability. Similarly, in instances of a first-year philosophy student with a modicum of intelligence, they may question ethics’ ontological status. However, their act of existing, being, and acting in the world instantiates it.

Colloquially, the transcendent ethics can be known as religious ethics. By and large, they’ve won the numbers game. Also, they’ve lost the legitimacy game. When we examine international ethics, systems, rules, and global order, the winner is clearly not religious ethics.

The religious ethics binding to the transcendent, as in imbuing an unseen transcendent object as the source of The Good from which every good follows by natural discourse, logical derivation. International human rights won the day.

All nations are bound to international human rights. Every nation contains a different religion, sect of a faith, and interpretation of the proper ethic therefrom. In terms of human rights, fewer seem this way.

In that, international human rights ethics are the fundamental basis for the modern nation-states bound by regions and the globe. People may self-define as religious. However, their ethics and governments are guided by international institutions.

If the governments and the institutions, nongovernmental organizations, international nongovernmental organizations, civil society organizations, and others, fail to live up to a standard, they are not judged by religious/transcendental standards.

They are judged within frameworks of international human rights. By logical implication, the hidden premise is international secular human rights. Because the basis for the rights do not rely upon a transcendent source. Some philosophical idea within the metaphysical/supernatural/extramaterial domains of discourse.

The rights inherent for others become, as well, requirements for the comprehension of others’ boundaries. Where they start, I stop; where they stop, I, or others, start. If I claim rights for myself from others, then I imply obligations of myself for others.

The right to a freedom stops at the infringement of the right of the other person. These become more generalized utility markers or signifiers in social settings than the parochial and limited transcendent ethics.

Those latter ethics claiming objective status while littered with the language of the local, the provincial, often the cruel, in fact. The former morality incorporative of more neutral, inclusive though diversified, and sophisticated language than the vagaries found in the verities of religious holy texts.

In this sense, the international secular rights become a basis for truer universality of the ethics of rights. Furthermore, these will mean a fuller sense of the obligations derivative or implied as a coupling with the “truer universality of the ethics of rights.”

Any right will require a concomitant obligation; every obligation comes with a coincident right. While the basis for universal remains statistical or approximated, never achieved in a sense of finality of the aim, the fundamental implication of rights is obligations or responsibilities.

The mature orientation on ethics imbues a sense of a consciousness-based Golden Rule behind the scenes of rights and obligations. Where the rights imply obligations, and vice versa, this is the logic of the Golden Rule.

However, implied within it, we find the necessity of a conscious agent behind it. Rocks don’t have consciousness, don’t have rights and responsibilities. Thusly, rights mean responsibilities; responsibilities mean rights.

Essentially, it couldn’t not be; it couldn’t be any other way.

Photo by Christophe Hautier on Unsplash

Mental health sits at the foundation of general human wellbeing. Human rights stand as a universalist vision of the international community of nations and citizens. If we want an equitable world, we need health global citizens with equal opportunity and stature.

Human rights and mental health are a united front for the equal treatment of all. Human rights mean every human being is provided the same privileges and responsibilities. Mental health is something for everyone to strive to attain and maintain for a better life.

On December 10, 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights created the foundation for an international human rights and rules based global order. Everyone, in theory, acquires the same rights, becomes subject to the same laws, and operates within the same boundaries.

Personal development deals with individual people who each have a mental status: healthy or unhealthy. For proper functioning in a society, in relationship, in professional life, in individual self-management and self-care, mental health reigns supreme.

In a sense, without mental health, we can’t have professional life health, relationship health, or societal health. It’s bottom up. It starts with an apparent irreducible component of the field of psychology, individual human personalities.

Therefore, ill societies are comprised of ill individuals; healthy societies are composed of healthy individuals. To make incremental change or piecemeal reform to the health status of societies, we should focus on individuals, individual needs, and personal development as these over time.

A fundamental basis of the international rights and rules based order is the idea of the rights as principles. In general, these principles, human rights as such, mean broad ethical principles with legal and social import for freedoms and entitlements.

The tacit implication behind human rights freedoms and entitlements is the consequent need for obligations and duties. If you want a right, then you purchase a responsibility as a consequence of it. It’s a two-part deal.

Individual human rights follow from the ideas of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In that, the rights inhere, tie to, individual human beings. You have rights and obligations. I have rights and obligations. Same with our neighbours. We have right to exercise them, too.

One obscure idea in the United Nations is the idea of autonymity. I do not see the term used much, but I see the concept used all the time. It’s foundational to rights. If you have ethical principles, what is the point without the ability to exercise them.

Take, for example, the right to freedom of expression; it’s a fundamental human right. By writing this article in this forum with this particular formulation of ideas, I am exercising the right to freedom of expression.

Even with rare formalization with the explicit use of the term, it’s a hugely consequential idea. The concept of guarding, keeping, the right to exercise all other rights. The idea, typically, is applied to use of names, as in autonymity.

It means “inalienable personal rights which may be exercised in any situation.” In the domain of mental health and the cross-sect of individual fundamental human rights, the question arises, “What is the relevance of human rights and mental health?” It’s a good question.

With some more thought, it is a profound question with deep, lasting consequences for our lives and, as argued above, societies’ health. One would need to connect human rights to mental health in a direct way.

Where, a basic international human rights argument is made for the right to mental health. Following this, the “inalienable personal rights which may be exercised in any situation” become relevant to psychological wellness.

In fact, this has been argued, directly, by the United Nations. The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights in “Mental health is a human right.” If we take this foundational part of the United Nations and the article, some of the core paragraphs include the following:

In a recent report on the right to mental health, the UN right to health expert, Mr. Dainius Pūras, pointed out that despite evidence that there cannot be health without mental health, nowhere in the world does mental health enjoy parity with physical health in terms of budgeting, or medical education and practice…

…A report by the UN Human Rights office points out that people with mental health conditions and those with psychosocial disabilities experience disproportionately higher rates of poor physical health; and have a reduced life expectancy – a 20-year drop for men and 15 years for women – compared with the general population. Stigma is also a significant determinant of quality care and access to the full range of services they require…

…Discrimination, harmful stereotypes and stigma in the community, family, schools and the workplace prevent healthy relationships, social interactions and the inclusive environments that are needed for anyone’s well-being…

For the UN health expert, Dainius Pūras also, recognizing the diversity of human experience and the multitude of ways in which people process life needs to be more broadly understood.

“Respecting that diversity is crucial to ending discrimination,” he writes in his report. “Peer-led movements and self-help groups, which help to normalize human experiences that are considered unconventional, contribute towards more tolerant, peaceful and just societies,” he says. 

The extended quote at the end seems the most important because the emphasis is on some of the facets of the work on the “peer-led movements and self-help groups.”

The fact of the matter, the international community lacks proper comprehension of the issues of mental health and, even if they have the understanding, do not have the appropriate infrastructure to deal with it.

It’s not only the OHCHR working on bringing this need to public global attention. In Canada, a number of efforts exist here. A number of public statements have been made about the importance of public mental health. Ontario Human Rights Commission works with a number of communities and partners.

Some of those include the CAMH Empowerment Council, Canadian Mental Health Association – Ontario Branch, Canadian Mental Health Association – Ottawa Branch, Canadian Mental Health Association – Toronto Branch, and Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, and more.

Internationally, the World Health Organization states, “We are facing a global human rights emergency in mental health. All over the world people with mental disabilities experience a wide range of human rights violations…”

They continue, “Mental health policies and laws are absent or inadequate in most countries of the world and yet they are critical to improving conditions for people with mental disabilities… All people and professionals who have an impact on the lives of people with mental disabilities should receive training on human rights issues.”

South, to the United States, the American Psychological Association stipulated:

During the 183rd plenary meeting on Dec. 10, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) Article 25, which states that: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control…

…The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is an inter-governmental body within the UN’s system that is made up of 47 countries elected from the full membership. The council is responsible for the promotion and protection of all human rights around the globe, and it views physical and mental health as a central tenet of its work…

…The preamble to the 1946 Constitution of the World Health Organization (WHO) defines health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” The relationship between mental health and human rights is an integral and interdependent one…

…The UN right to health expert, Special Rapporteur Dainius Pūras, states that one of the most basic challenges to mental health is stigma and discrimination.

Those should make the emphasis clearer. These can create the basis for a better knowledge of the interconnectedness of international, national, and provincial efforts to improve both the status of human rights and the mental health of citizens.

Similarly, direct efforts at improving the conditions of human rights through increased mental health are ongoing, the question, at this point, shouldn’t be, “What is the relation of human rights and mental health?”

Rather, it should be, “What is the best way in which to implement human rights to improve international mental health at an individual level?” Fundamentally, this is the question. It is not a singular solution. Because it’s a plural problem.

This hydra will require targeted interventions and community-based interventions to work on specific, individualized issues. There’s anxiety, depression, narcissism, psychopathy/sociopathy (antisocial personality disorder), bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and so on.

Each one has a differentiated formal solution. Every one with multiple ways to combat them in better and worse ways.

Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash

Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation… What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t.

-Stephen Hawking

A world without ethics or morality comes only in the set of realities without conscious agents or in the set of null universes. A world comprised of matter and energy, or information, and potential, with conscious agents. One with implied pasts and potential futures.

No light, no ought, agency births ethics. Thus, the tale of the tribe: theology failed; no magic. A discipline of primitive eras and peoples — “primitive” meaning original — best set in the field of anthropology and archaeology now.

A verisimilitude to knowledge without the authenticity of actuality. A propinquity to materiality without substantive veracity. A claim to truth for a species in its youth. A “more convincing explanation” exists in the present situation.

Some approximation to the principles of ‘the mind of God’ without a god, as such. The set of possible universes remains larger than the set of null universes. Therefore, existence becomes statistically favoured more than non-existence.

With this, the statistical existence argument to a set of realities including time because more universes with a large finite number of moments exist than a set of realities with only one moment. Hence, a statistical argument for temporality on top of the statistical argument for existence.

Time as manifest in the Arrow of Time. ‘Old archaeological digs’ find arguments for a transcendent and immanent object. A source of The Good, an assertion of an extranatural atemporal, and natural immanent, entity as the source of ethics or morality. Theology failed to deliver.

One traditional partition in ethics comes from the Humean formulation of is/ought. Facts of the world versus actions in the world. A possible way forward of the is/ought solution sits in temporal statistical unavoidability or the inevitability of time in statistical considerations. Time implies sequences. Thus, the inescapable fact of consequences in a reality with time.

Another possible partial solution comes from the bifurcation of realities. Consider for the moment, two sets of realities exist. One without conscious information processors. Another with them. In the first, no ethics because no conscious action. In the second, morality exists because of conscious action.

Morality may define principles governing behaviour or the conducting of an activity. If morality/ethics define as “principles governing behaviour or the conducting of an activity,” then ethics/morality become inevitable in the second set of realities. Because actions occur through conscious information processors.

Both sets of realities inevitably include time. Only one incorporates conscious information processors. In the only set incorporative of conscious information processors, time and morality become inevitable, statistically, as with existence. We come to the stream of statistical inevitabilities with statistical arguments for existence, temporality, agency, and morality.

If the set of possible universes remains larger than the set of null universes, then existence becomes statistically more probable. If existence becomes statistically more probable, then realities with more than one moment of time become statistically more probable than realities with only one moment of time.

If realities with more than one moment become statistically more probable than realities with only one moment of time, then one set will evolve conscious information processors and one set will not.

If conscious information processors evolve in one set of universes, and if morality/ethics define as “principles governing behaviour or conducting of an activity,” then evolving conscious information processors creates morality/ethics, because conscious information processors cerebrate/move or conduct activities.

If evolving conscious information processors creates morality/ethics, then ethics/morality becomes statistically inevitable in one set of universes. Thus, if the set of possible universes remains larger than the set of null universes, then ethics/morality becomes statistically inevitable in one set of universes.

The statistically probable occurrence of existence, of time, of agency, of ethics. If negated at any stage, the argument fails. If no existence, then no time, no agency, and no ethics; if existence and no time, then no agency and no ethics; if existence, time, and no agency, then no ethics; if existence, time, and agency, then ethics.

Ethics comes from agency. Agency comes from time. Time comes from existence. Existence separates from non-existence more likely than not. Is/ought remains preserved as separate ideas, but become coupled together.

Any act contains moral content without morality as an extranatural occurrence or with an implied metaphysical content. Natural informational processes evolve the organism with the structures generating both the interior landscape, the mind, and the exterior framework, the body.

Nothing extranatural invoked as, for example, brains produce valuations of entities, objects, abstractions, and relations between them. An error comes from the claim of ethical values or moral claims as metaphysical or supernatural. In fact, this adds nothing.

Natural structures construct relations between structures as facts of the world. Internal agents to the natural structures, as relations between structures themselves, create internalized frameworks for entities, objects, abstractions, and relations between them. All internalized frameworks come from within the system and/or relate to the system.

No metaphysics, only the natural present there. Hence, the reason for the failure of theology – logical missteps, and the creative formulation of unnecessary/false premises and without proper accounts for required hidden premises.

Otherwise, we can claim abstractions manifested in the information processing within the digital computation system count as metaphysical operators because of computation/valuation in the universe.

It posits more than necessitated and ignores the obvious. Evolved organisms exist in time processing information while giving value to things in reality. Where, an act in the world becomes something of factual content, as contained in reality.

While, the factual content implies moral content because ethics/morality defines as “principles governing behaviour or conducting of an activity.” These acts come coupled with ethical content because of agency.

If a conscious information processor exists in a reality, then morality/ethics becomes unavoidable because the “conscious information processor” must deal with itself and its environment (if only one entity in the universe), or must deal with itself, others, and its environment (if more than one entity in the universe).

The distinction between is/ought comes with the preservation of the separation in one sense, where the individual ideas exist as substantive and legitimate in their own right. Further, though, they, in fact, must give one from the other.

Thus, we can communicate meaning in terms of factual morality, not moral facts. As above, ethics/morals are unavoidable for any reality with at least one conscious information processor. Time, at our scales, appears completely unavoidable, so consequences of “behaviour” in an environment seem inevitable.

Whether actions in reality to oneself, to its environment, or to others, ethics comes with agency. Only one conscious information processor required in the universe.

A reality exists first with facts as pieces of the real world, then an agent, whether knowing or not, enacts mentation and action, which, by definition, impart moral content. Those two together make ethics unavoidable, so any facts must inform our ethics or morality.

Because ethics amounts to the conducting of an activity with activities relevant to conscious information processing systems and time implied in both the known physics of the universe at the scales of the conscious information processing agents, and in the sense of the agents existing and “processing.”

A macro world with the Arrow of Time means statistically linked moments with directionality. A world of conscious information processors (with physical exteriors, frames) creates actions in the world, even mentation can mean action in the world.

Both mean a time sense with moments providing a range of possible moments while harbouring a set of implied pasts based on each instantiation of moments. The only issue seems as if whether the conscious information processor becomes aware of the enactment of the ethic, or not, but there exists a moral value set enacted regardless, unavoidably.

Ethics requires the conscious information processing system, while without the necessity for sufficient awareness within the conscious information processing system for a systematic comprehension of the morality/ethics of the mentation and actions in the world.

Therefore, if ethics (actions in the world) are unavoidable with a conscious information processor (or conscious information processors), and if a conscious information processor exists on a magnitude in which the Arrow of Time exists inevitably, then any facts about reality impinging on a conscious information processor (or conscious information processors) and its environment (their environment and one another) have ethical consequences; everything factual to agency implies the moral, but the “everything” is statistical, because existence statistically exists.

Photo by v2osk on Unsplash