Entailments Across Dilemmas
Argument Map
The 51 dilemmas are not independent. Every school in the atlas resolves to one stance on every dilemma, and the resulting co-membership produces measurable conditional probabilities: if you hold stance X on dilemma A, what stance on dilemma B do schools in your position tend to also hold? The argument map surfaces these entailments — turning isolated questions into a navigable terrain of philosophical commitments.
Notable tendencies. A majority of schools in the source stance also hold the target stance, but enough exceptions exist that the implication is suggestive rather than determining. Where the real philosophical interest often lies.
5953 entailments in this band
1%
79/93
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
79/93
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
79/93
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
79/93
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
79/93
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
79/93
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
79/93
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
79/93
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
79/93
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
56/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
1%
56/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
1%
56/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
1%
56/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
1%
56/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
1%
56/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
56/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
1%
56/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
1%
56/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
1%
56/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
1%
56/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
1%
56/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
56/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
1%
56/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
1%
56/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
1%
56/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
1%
56/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
1%
56/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
28/33
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Past, present, and future are bound in cycles — duties span generations as a matter of course.
1%
28/33
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is part of a cycle one keeps returning to; regret is one of the gates of the cycle.
1%
28/33
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past beings are part of the cycle; we owe them what we owe ancestors.
1%
28/33
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form.
1%
28/33
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history.
1%
28/33
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Local entropy increase is part of a cycle; the moral category is participation in the cycle.
1%
28/33
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle.
1%
28/33
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory and anticipation are phases of a cycle that visits both directions.
1%
28/33
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
Within a cycle there is a direction; across the cycle there isn't.
1%
50/59
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
1%
50/59
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
1%
50/59
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
1%
50/59
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
50/59
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
50/59
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
50/59
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
1%
50/59
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
1%
50/59
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
1%
50/59
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
50/59
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
50/59
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
50/59
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
1%
50/59
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
1%
50/59
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
50/59
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
1%
50/59
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
1%
50/59
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
50/59
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
1%
50/59
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
1%
50/59
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
61/72
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
61/72
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
61/72
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
61/72
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
61/72
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
61/72
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
61/72
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
61/72
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
61/72
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
83/98
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
83/98
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
83/98
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
83/98
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
83/98
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
83/98
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
33/39
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
33/39
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
33/39
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
22/26
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
22/26
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
22/26
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
11/13
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Creedal documents and Scripture-as-doctrine are the authority.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
11/13
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Creedal documents and Scripture-as-doctrine are the authority.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
11/13
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Creedal documents and Scripture-as-doctrine are the authority.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
11/13
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Creedal documents and Scripture-as-doctrine are the authority.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
11/13
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Creedal documents and Scripture-as-doctrine are the authority.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
11/13
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Creedal documents and Scripture-as-doctrine are the authority.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
11/13
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Creedal documents and Scripture-as-doctrine are the authority.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
11/13
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Creedal documents and Scripture-as-doctrine are the authority.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
11/13
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Creedal documents and Scripture-as-doctrine are the authority.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
11/13
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Creedal documents and Scripture-as-doctrine are the authority.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
11/13
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Creedal documents and Scripture-as-doctrine are the authority.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
11/13
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Creedal documents and Scripture-as-doctrine are the authority.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
11/13
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Creedal documents and Scripture-as-doctrine are the authority.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
11/13
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Creedal documents and Scripture-as-doctrine are the authority.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
11/13
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Creedal documents and Scripture-as-doctrine are the authority.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
11/13
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Creedal documents and Scripture-as-doctrine are the authority.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through received divine self-disclosure.
1%
11/13
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Creedal documents and Scripture-as-doctrine are the authority.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
1%
82/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
82/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
82/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
82/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
82/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
82/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
82/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
82/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
82/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
87/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
87/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
87/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
87/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
87/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
87/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
87/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
87/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
87/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
87/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
87/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
87/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
87/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
87/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
87/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
87/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
54/64
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
54/64
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
54/64
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
54/64
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
54/64
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
54/64
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
54/64
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
54/64
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
54/64
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
54/64
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
54/64
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
54/64
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
27/32
When does a person begin?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
27/32
When does a person begin?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
27/32
When does a person begin?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
27/32
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
27/32
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
27/32
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
27/32
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
27/32
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
27/32
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
27/32
What is a nation?
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
27/32
What is a nation?
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
27/32
What is a nation?
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
27/32
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
27/32
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
27/32
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
27/32
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
27/32
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
27/32
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
59/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
59/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
59/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
59/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
59/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
59/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
59/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
16/19
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
Yes — mind is a pattern, not a substrate.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
16/19
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
Yes — mind is a pattern, not a substrate.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
16/19
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
Yes — mind is a pattern, not a substrate.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
79/94
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
79/94
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
79/94
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
63/75
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
63/75
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
63/75
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
63/75
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
63/75
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
63/75
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
63/75
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
63/75
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
63/75
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
63/75
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
63/75
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
63/75
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
21/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
21/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
21/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
21/25
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through received divine self-disclosure.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
21/25
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through received divine self-disclosure.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
21/25
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through received divine self-disclosure.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
91/109
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
91/109
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
91/109
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
91/109
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
91/109
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
91/109
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
65/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
65/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
65/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
65/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
65/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
65/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
65/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
65/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
65/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
65/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
65/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
65/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
50/60
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
50/60
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
50/60
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
50/60
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
10/12
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches through ancestors, kami, or the spirits active in the world.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; what is real is the connection, not its length.
1%
10/12
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches through ancestors, kami, or the spirits active in the world.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
1%
10/12
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches through ancestors, kami, or the spirits active in the world.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
1%
10/12
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the world speaking through spirits, ancestors, or signs.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; what is real is the connection, not its length.
1%
10/12
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the world speaking through spirits, ancestors, or signs.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
1%
10/12
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the world speaking through spirits, ancestors, or signs.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
1%
10/12
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
10/12
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
10/12
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
10/12
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
10/12
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
10/12
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
10/12
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
10/12
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
10/12
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
49/59
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
49/59
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
49/59
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
49/59
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
49/59
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
49/59
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
49/59
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
49/59
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
49/59
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
49/59
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
49/59
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
49/59
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
49/59
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
49/59
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
49/59
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
49/59
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
49/59
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
73/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
92/111
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
92/111
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
92/111
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
92/111
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
92/111
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
92/111
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
92/111
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
92/111
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
92/111
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
92/111
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
92/111
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
92/111
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
58/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
53/64
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
53/64
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
53/64
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
53/64
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
53/64
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
53/64
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
53/64
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
53/64
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
53/64
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
48/58
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
48/58
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
48/58
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
48/58
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
24/29
What makes someone the same person over time?
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
24/29
What makes someone the same person over time?
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
24/29
What makes someone the same person over time?
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
24/29
What makes someone the same person over time?
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
24/29
What makes someone the same person over time?
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
24/29
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
24/29
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
24/29
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
24/29
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
24/29
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
24/29
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
24/29
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
24/29
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
24/29
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
24/29
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
24/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
24/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
24/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
24/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
24/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
24/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
19/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
1%
19/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
19/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
19/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
19/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
1%
19/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
19/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
19/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
80/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
80/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
80/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
80/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
80/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
80/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
80/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
80/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
80/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
80/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
80/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
80/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
80/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
80/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
80/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
80/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
80/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
80/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
14/17
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
14/17
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
14/17
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
14/17
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
14/17
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
14/17
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
14/17
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
14/17
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
14/17
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
14/17
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
14/17
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
14/17
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
23/28
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the practice, not the practitioner.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
23/28
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the practice, not the practitioner.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
23/28
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the practice, not the practitioner.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
23/28
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
'Revelation' is a category communities construct for what counts as authoritative.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
23/28
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
'Revelation' is a category communities construct for what counts as authoritative.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
23/28
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
'Revelation' is a category communities construct for what counts as authoritative.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
23/28
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
Whether an LLM 'knows' is the constructive question the practice has to answer.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
23/28
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
Whether an LLM 'knows' is the constructive question the practice has to answer.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
23/28
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
Whether an LLM 'knows' is the constructive question the practice has to answer.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
23/28
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Institutional teaching tradition is the authority.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
23/28
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Institutional teaching tradition is the authority.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
23/28
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Institutional teaching tradition is the authority.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
23/28
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Institutional teaching tradition is the authority.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
23/28
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Institutional teaching tradition is the authority.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
23/28
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Institutional teaching tradition is the authority.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
23/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
23/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
23/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
32/39
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
32/39
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
32/39
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
32/39
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
32/39
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
32/39
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
50/61
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
50/61
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
50/61
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
72/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
72/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
72/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
54/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
54/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
54/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
54/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
1%
54/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
54/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
54/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
54/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
1%
54/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
54/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
54/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
54/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
1%
27/33
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
1%
27/33
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
1%
27/33
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
1%
9/11
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What appears irreversible is reversible by the right action.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
9/11
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What appears irreversible is reversible by the right action.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
9/11
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What appears irreversible is reversible by the right action.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
9/11
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What appears irreversible is reversible by the right action.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
9/11
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What appears irreversible is reversible by the right action.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
9/11
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What appears irreversible is reversible by the right action.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
9/11
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What appears irreversible is reversible by the right action.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
9/11
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization is the kind of order that can in principle be restored.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
9/11
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization is the kind of order that can in principle be restored.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
9/11
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization is the kind of order that can in principle be restored.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
9/11
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization is the kind of order that can in principle be restored.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
9/11
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization is the kind of order that can in principle be restored.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
9/11
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization is the kind of order that can in principle be restored.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
9/11
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization is the kind of order that can in principle be restored.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
9/11
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Apparent entropy is reversible in principle; the moral category is restoration.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
9/11
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Apparent entropy is reversible in principle; the moral category is restoration.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
9/11
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Apparent entropy is reversible in principle; the moral category is restoration.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
9/11
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Apparent entropy is reversible in principle; the moral category is restoration.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
9/11
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Apparent entropy is reversible in principle; the moral category is restoration.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
9/11
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Apparent entropy is reversible in principle; the moral category is restoration.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
9/11
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Apparent entropy is reversible in principle; the moral category is restoration.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
49/60
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
49/60
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
49/60
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
22/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
22/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
22/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
22/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
22/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
22/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
22/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
22/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
22/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
22/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
22/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
22/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
57/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
1%
57/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
1%
57/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
1%
57/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
1%
48/59
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
48/59
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
48/59
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
48/59
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
48/59
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
48/59
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
26/32
When does a person begin?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
26/32
When does a person begin?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
26/32
When does a person begin?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
26/32
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
26/32
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
26/32
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
26/32
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
26/32
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
26/32
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
26/32
What is a nation?
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
26/32
What is a nation?
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
26/32
What is a nation?
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
26/32
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
26/32
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
26/32
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
26/32
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
26/32
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
26/32
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
82/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
82/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
82/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
17/21
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
17/21
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
17/21
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
17/21
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
17/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
17/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
17/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
17/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
17/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
17/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
17/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
42/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
42/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
42/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
42/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
42/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
42/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
42/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
42/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
42/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
21/26
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
21/26
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
21/26
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
21/26
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
21/26
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
21/26
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
21/26
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
21/26
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
21/26
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
21/26
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
21/26
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
21/26
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
46/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
46/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
46/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
46/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
46/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
46/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
71/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
71/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
71/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
71/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
83/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
83/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
83/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
83/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
83/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
83/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
83/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
83/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
83/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
83/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
83/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
83/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
78/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
78/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
78/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
49/61
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
49/61
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
49/61
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
81/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
81/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
81/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
81/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
89/111
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
89/111
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
89/111
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
89/111
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
89/111
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
89/111
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
89/111
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
89/111
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
89/111
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
60/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
60/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
1%
60/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
1%
56/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
1%
56/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
1%
40/50
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
40/50
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
40/50
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
40/50
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
40/50
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
40/50
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
28/35
How much weight do future people deserve?
Past, present, and future are bound in cycles — duties span generations as a matter of course.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
1%
28/35
Is regret rational?
The past is part of a cycle one keeps returning to; regret is one of the gates of the cycle.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
1%
28/35
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past beings are part of the cycle; we owe them what we owe ancestors.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
1%
28/35
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
1%
28/35
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
1%
28/35
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Local entropy increase is part of a cycle; the moral category is participation in the cycle.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
1%
28/35
Could causation work backwards?
Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
1%
28/35
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory and anticipation are phases of a cycle that visits both directions.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
1%
28/35
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
Within a cycle there is a direction; across the cycle there isn't.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
1%
28/35
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
28/35
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
28/35
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
20/25
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through received divine self-disclosure.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
20/25
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through received divine self-disclosure.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
20/25
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through received divine self-disclosure.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
20/25
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through received divine self-disclosure.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
20/25
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through received divine self-disclosure.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
20/25
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through received divine self-disclosure.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
20/25
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through received divine self-disclosure.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
20/25
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through received divine self-disclosure.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
20/25
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through received divine self-disclosure.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
20/25
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through received divine self-disclosure.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
1%
16/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
1%
16/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
1%
16/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
1%
16/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
1%
16/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
1%
16/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
1%
16/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
1%
16/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
1%
16/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
1%
16/20
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but accessible only from within a tradition.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
16/20
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but accessible only from within a tradition.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
16/20
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but accessible only from within a tradition.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
12/15
When does a person begin?
From the standpoint of the One, the question doesn’t apply in the form it is asked.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
12/15
When does a person begin?
From the standpoint of the One, the question doesn’t apply in the form it is asked.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
12/15
When does a person begin?
From the standpoint of the One, the question doesn’t apply in the form it is asked.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
12/15
What is marriage?
All union is participation in the One — particular forms are conventional.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
12/15
What is marriage?
All union is participation in the One — particular forms are conventional.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
12/15
What is marriage?
All union is participation in the One — particular forms are conventional.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
12/15
What is money?
Money's apparent diversity is convention over a single underlying value.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
12/15
What is money?
Money's apparent diversity is convention over a single underlying value.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
12/15
What is money?
Money's apparent diversity is convention over a single underlying value.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
12/15
What is a nation?
Nations are conventional partitions of a single humanity.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
12/15
What is a nation?
Nations are conventional partitions of a single humanity.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
12/15
What is a nation?
Nations are conventional partitions of a single humanity.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
12/15
What makes someone male or female?
The distinction is conventional within a deeper non-dual reality.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
12/15
What makes someone male or female?
The distinction is conventional within a deeper non-dual reality.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
12/15
What makes someone male or female?
The distinction is conventional within a deeper non-dual reality.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
12/15
Should we edit the human germline?
The distinction between edited and unedited is conventional within a deeper non-dual reality.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
12/15
Should we edit the human germline?
The distinction between edited and unedited is conventional within a deeper non-dual reality.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
12/15
Should we edit the human germline?
The distinction between edited and unedited is conventional within a deeper non-dual reality.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
12/15
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
All minds are aspects of one — an AI participates in it as anything else does.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
12/15
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
All minds are aspects of one — an AI participates in it as anything else does.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
12/15
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
All minds are aspects of one — an AI participates in it as anything else does.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
12/15
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
All minds are aspects of one; animals participate as much as anything else.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
12/15
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
All minds are aspects of one; animals participate as much as anything else.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
12/15
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
All minds are aspects of one; animals participate as much as anything else.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
12/15
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Any experience that arises participates in the One.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
12/15
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Any experience that arises participates in the One.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
12/15
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Any experience that arises participates in the One.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
12/15
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through practical engagement; what works counts as known.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
12/15
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through practical engagement; what works counts as known.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
8/10
What happens to "you" when you die?
The question presupposes a "you" that never was.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
8/10
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The class or historical movement is the moral primary.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
8/10
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The class or historical movement is the moral primary.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
8/10
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The class or historical movement is the moral primary.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
8/10
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The class or historical movement is the moral primary.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
8/10
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The class or historical movement is the moral primary.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
8/10
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The class or historical movement is the moral primary.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
8/10
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The class or historical movement is the moral primary.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is the gradual unfolding of improvement or liberation.
1%
4/5
How much weight do future people deserve?
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
4/5
How much weight do future people deserve?
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
4/5
How much weight do future people deserve?
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
4/5
How much weight do future people deserve?
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
4/5
How much weight do future people deserve?
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
4/5
How much weight do future people deserve?
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
4/5
How much weight do future people deserve?
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
Yes — mind is a pattern, not a substrate.
1%
4/5
How much weight do future people deserve?
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
1%
4/5
How much weight do future people deserve?
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
1%
4/5
How much weight do future people deserve?
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
1%
4/5
How much weight do future people deserve?
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
4/5
How much weight do future people deserve?
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
4/5
Is regret rational?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
4/5
Is regret rational?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
4/5
Is regret rational?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
4/5
Is regret rational?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
4/5
Is regret rational?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
4/5
Is regret rational?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
4/5
Is regret rational?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
Yes — mind is a pattern, not a substrate.
1%
4/5
Is regret rational?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
1%
4/5
Is regret rational?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
1%
4/5
Is regret rational?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
1%
4/5
Is regret rational?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
4/5
Is regret rational?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
4/5
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
4/5
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
4/5
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
4/5
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
4/5
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
4/5
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
4/5
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
Yes — mind is a pattern, not a substrate.
1%
4/5
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
1%
4/5
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
1%
4/5
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
1%
4/5
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
4/5
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
4/5
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
4/5
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
4/5
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
4/5
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
4/5
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
4/5
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
4/5
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
Yes — mind is a pattern, not a substrate.
1%
4/5
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
1%
4/5
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
1%
4/5
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
1%
4/5
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
4/5
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
4/5
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
4/5
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
4/5
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
4/5
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
4/5
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
4/5
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
4/5
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
Yes — mind is a pattern, not a substrate.
1%
4/5
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
1%
4/5
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
1%
4/5
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
1%
4/5
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
4/5
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
4/5
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
4/5
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
4/5
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
4/5
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
4/5
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
4/5
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
4/5
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
Yes — mind is a pattern, not a substrate.
1%
4/5
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
1%
4/5
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
1%
4/5
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
1%
4/5
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
4/5
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
4/5
Could causation work backwards?
Past, present, and future are conventional designations; the question doesn't quite arise.
→
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
1%
4/5
Could causation work backwards?
Past, present, and future are conventional designations; the question doesn't quite arise.
→
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
1%
4/5
Could causation work backwards?
Past, present, and future are conventional designations; the question doesn't quite arise.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
1%
4/5
Could causation work backwards?
Past, present, and future are conventional designations; the question doesn't quite arise.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
4/5
Could causation work backwards?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
4/5
Could causation work backwards?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
4/5
Could causation work backwards?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
4/5
Could causation work backwards?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
4/5
Could causation work backwards?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
4/5
Could causation work backwards?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
4/5
Could causation work backwards?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
Yes — mind is a pattern, not a substrate.
1%
4/5
Could causation work backwards?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
1%
4/5
Could causation work backwards?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
1%
4/5
Could causation work backwards?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
1%
4/5
Could causation work backwards?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
4/5
Could causation work backwards?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
4/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The categories of memory and anticipation are conventional; their asymmetry is what we built.
→
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
1%
4/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The categories of memory and anticipation are conventional; their asymmetry is what we built.
→
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
1%
4/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The categories of memory and anticipation are conventional; their asymmetry is what we built.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
1%
4/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The categories of memory and anticipation are conventional; their asymmetry is what we built.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
4/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
4/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
4/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
4/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
4/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
4/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
4/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
Yes — mind is a pattern, not a substrate.
1%
4/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
1%
4/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
1%
4/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
1%
4/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
4/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
4/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
There is no fact about whether time has an arrow; the question is metaphysical posing.
→
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
1%
4/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
There is no fact about whether time has an arrow; the question is metaphysical posing.
→
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
1%
4/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
There is no fact about whether time has an arrow; the question is metaphysical posing.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
1%
4/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
There is no fact about whether time has an arrow; the question is metaphysical posing.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
4/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
4/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
4/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
4/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
4/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
4/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
4/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
Yes — mind is a pattern, not a substrate.
1%
4/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
1%
4/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
1%
4/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
1%
4/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
4/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
71/89
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
47/59
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
47/59
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
47/59
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
47/59
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
47/59
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
47/59
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
47/59
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
47/59
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
47/59
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
62/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
62/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
62/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
62/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
77/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
77/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
77/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
77/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
77/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
77/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
77/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
77/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
77/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
23/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
88/111
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
88/111
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
88/111
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
88/111
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
88/111
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
88/111
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
88/111
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
88/111
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
88/111
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
88/111
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
88/111
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
88/111
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
88/111
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
88/111
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
88/111
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
88/111
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
88/111
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
88/111
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
45/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
45/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
45/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
45/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
45/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
45/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
45/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
45/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
45/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
45/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
45/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
45/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
45/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
45/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
45/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
45/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
45/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
45/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
45/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
45/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
45/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
45/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
45/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
45/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
45/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
45/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
45/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
45/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
45/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
45/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
86/109
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
86/109
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
86/109
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
86/109
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
86/109
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
86/109
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
86/109
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
86/109
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
86/109
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
86/109
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
86/109
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
86/109
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
86/109
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
86/109
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
86/109
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
86/109
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
86/109
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
86/109
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
41/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
41/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
41/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
41/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
41/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
41/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
41/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
41/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
41/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
41/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
41/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
41/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
41/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
41/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
41/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
41/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
41/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
41/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
41/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
41/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
41/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
41/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
41/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
41/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
41/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
41/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
41/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
52/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
52/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
52/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
52/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
52/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
52/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
52/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
52/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
52/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
52/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
52/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
52/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
52/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
52/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
52/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
52/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
52/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
52/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
59/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
1%
59/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
1%
59/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
1%
59/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
1%
59/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
59/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
59/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
59/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
59/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
1%
59/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
1%
59/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
1%
59/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
1%
59/75
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
59/75
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
59/75
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
59/75
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
59/75
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
59/75
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
59/75
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
59/75
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
59/75
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
77/98
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
77/98
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
77/98
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
77/98
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
77/98
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
77/98
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
55/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
55/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
55/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
55/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
55/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
55/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
44/56
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The community of persons is the moral primary.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
44/56
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The community of persons is the moral primary.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
44/56
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The community of persons is the moral primary.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
22/28
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the practice, not the practitioner.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
22/28
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
'Revelation' is a category communities construct for what counts as authoritative.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
22/28
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
Whether an LLM 'knows' is the constructive question the practice has to answer.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
22/28
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Institutional teaching tradition is the authority.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
1%
22/28
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Institutional teaching tradition is the authority.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
1%
22/28
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Institutional teaching tradition is the authority.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
1%
22/28
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Institutional teaching tradition is the authority.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
22/28
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Institutional teaching tradition is the authority.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
22/28
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Institutional teaching tradition is the authority.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
22/28
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Institutional teaching tradition is the authority.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
22/28
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Institutional teaching tradition is the authority.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/14
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
The question presupposes a kind of mind that never existed in the first place.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
11/14
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
The question presupposes a kind of mind that never existed in the first place.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
11/14
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
The question presupposes a kind of mind that never existed in the first place.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
11/14
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
The question presupposes a kind of mind that never existed in the first place.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
11/14
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
The question presupposes a kind of mind that never existed in the first place.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
61/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
61/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
61/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
61/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
61/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
61/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
61/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
61/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
61/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
61/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
61/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
61/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
61/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
61/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
61/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
61/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
61/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
61/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
61/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
61/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
61/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
61/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
61/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
61/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
50/64
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
50/64
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
50/64
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
50/64
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
50/64
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
50/64
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
25/32
When does a person begin?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
25/32
When does a person begin?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
25/32
When does a person begin?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
25/32
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
25/32
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
25/32
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
25/32
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
25/32
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
25/32
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
25/32
What is a nation?
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
25/32
What is a nation?
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
25/32
What is a nation?
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
25/32
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
25/32
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
25/32
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
25/32
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
25/32
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
25/32
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
39/50
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
39/50
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
39/50
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
46/59
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
46/59
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
46/59
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
46/59
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
46/59
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
46/59
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
46/59
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
46/59
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
46/59
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
21/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
21/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
21/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
21/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
21/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
21/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
14/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
14/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
14/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
14/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
14/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
14/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
14/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
14/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
14/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
14/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
14/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
14/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
14/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
14/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
14/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
14/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
14/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
14/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
14/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
14/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
14/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
14/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
14/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
14/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
14/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
14/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
14/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
14/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
14/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
14/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
14/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
14/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
14/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
14/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
14/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
14/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
14/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
14/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
14/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
14/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
14/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
14/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
14/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
14/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
14/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
14/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
14/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
14/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
14/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
14/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
14/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
14/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
14/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
14/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
14/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
14/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
14/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
14/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
14/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
14/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
7/9
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
7/9
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
7/9
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
7/9
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
1%
7/9
Is the physical world fully real?
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
7/9
Is the physical world fully real?
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
7/9
Is the physical world fully real?
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
7/9
Is the physical world fully real?
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
1%
7/9
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
7/9
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
7/9
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
7/9
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
1%
7/9
Does history have a direction or meaning?
The truth was once known and has been lost; the task is recovery.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The community of persons is the moral primary.
1%
7/9
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Personal decision or conversion experience is the authority.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
7/9
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Personal decision or conversion experience is the authority.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
7/9
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Personal decision or conversion experience is the authority.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
7/9
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Personal decision or conversion experience is the authority.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
7/9
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Personal decision or conversion experience is the authority.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
7/9
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Personal decision or conversion experience is the authority.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
7/9
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Personal decision or conversion experience is the authority.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
1%
7/9
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Personal decision or conversion experience is the authority.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
1%
7/9
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Personal decision or conversion experience is the authority.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
1%
7/9
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Personal decision or conversion experience is the authority.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
1%
7/9
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Personal decision or conversion experience is the authority.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
1%
7/9
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Personal decision or conversion experience is the authority.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
1%
7/9
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Personal decision or conversion experience is the authority.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
7/9
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Personal decision or conversion experience is the authority.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
7/9
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Personal decision or conversion experience is the authority.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
7/9
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Personal decision or conversion experience is the authority.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
1%
7/9
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Personal decision or conversion experience is the authority.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
1%
7/9
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Personal decision or conversion experience is the authority.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
1%
7/9
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Personal decision or conversion experience is the authority.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
7/9
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Personal decision or conversion experience is the authority.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
7/9
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Personal decision or conversion experience is the authority.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
7/9
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Personal decision or conversion experience is the authority.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
7/9
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Personal decision or conversion experience is the authority.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
7/9
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Personal decision or conversion experience is the authority.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
7/9
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Personal decision or conversion experience is the authority.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
7/9
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Personal decision or conversion experience is the authority.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
1%
7/9
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Personal decision or conversion experience is the authority.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
7/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Each soul stands before God alone.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
7/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Each soul stands before God alone.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
7/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Each soul stands before God alone.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
7/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Each soul stands before God alone.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
1%
7/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Each soul stands before God alone.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
1%
7/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Each soul stands before God alone.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
1%
7/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Each soul stands before God alone.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
7/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Each soul stands before God alone.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
7/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Each soul stands before God alone.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
7/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Each soul stands before God alone.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
7/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Each soul stands before God alone.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
7/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Each soul stands before God alone.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
7/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Each soul stands before God alone.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
7/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Each soul stands before God alone.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
7/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Each soul stands before God alone.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
7/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Each soul stands before God alone.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
7/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Each soul stands before God alone.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through received divine self-disclosure.
1%
7/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Each soul stands before God alone.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
7/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the collective historical work of the oppressed.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
7/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the collective historical work of the oppressed.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
7/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the collective historical work of the oppressed.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
7/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the collective historical work of the oppressed.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
7/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the collective historical work of the oppressed.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
7/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the collective historical work of the oppressed.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
7/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the collective historical work of the oppressed.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
45/58
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
45/58
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
45/58
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
72/93
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
72/93
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
72/93
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
58/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
58/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
1%
58/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
1%
58/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
1%
58/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
1%
58/75
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
58/75
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
58/75
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
58/75
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
58/75
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
58/75
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
58/75
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
58/75
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
58/75
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
68/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
68/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
68/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
68/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
68/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
68/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
68/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
68/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
68/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
17/22
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
17/22
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
17/22
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
78/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
78/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
78/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
44/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
44/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
44/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
54/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
1%
54/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
54/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
54/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
54/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
84/109
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
84/109
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
84/109
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
84/109
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
84/109
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
84/109
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
84/109
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
84/109
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
84/109
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
84/109
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
84/109
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
84/109
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
84/109
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
84/109
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
84/109
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
84/109
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
84/109
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
84/109
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
47/61
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
30/39
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
30/39
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
30/39
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
23/30
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
1%
23/30
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
1%
23/30
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
1%
23/30
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
1%
23/30
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
1%
23/30
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
1%
23/30
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
1%
23/30
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
1%
23/30
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
1%
23/30
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
1%
23/30
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
1%
23/30
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
1%
23/30
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
1%
23/30
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
1%
23/30
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
1%
23/30
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
1%
23/30
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
1%
23/30
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
1%
23/30
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
1%
23/30
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
1%
23/30
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the realization of cosmic or species self.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
72/94
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
72/94
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
72/94
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
72/94
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
72/94
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
72/94
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
72/94
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
72/94
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
72/94
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
72/94
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
72/94
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
72/94
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
72/94
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
72/94
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
72/94
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
72/94
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
72/94
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
72/94
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
72/94
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
72/94
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
72/94
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
72/94
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
72/94
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
72/94
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
72/94
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
72/94
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
72/94
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
36/47
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is the gradual unfolding of improvement or liberation.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
36/47
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is the gradual unfolding of improvement or liberation.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
36/47
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is the gradual unfolding of improvement or liberation.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
36/47
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is the gradual unfolding of improvement or liberation.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
36/47
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is the gradual unfolding of improvement or liberation.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
36/47
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is the gradual unfolding of improvement or liberation.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
49/64
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
49/64
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
49/64
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
49/64
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
49/64
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
49/64
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
49/64
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
49/64
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
49/64
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
49/64
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
49/64
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
75/98
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
75/98
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
13/17
What is our place in nature?
Humans and nature share an underlying unity — the separation was the mistake.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
13/17
What is our place in nature?
Humans and nature share an underlying unity — the separation was the mistake.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
13/17
What is our place in nature?
Humans and nature share an underlying unity — the separation was the mistake.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
13/17
Should we colonize space?
From the standpoint of the One, expansion across substrate is just movement within the same.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
13/17
Should we colonize space?
From the standpoint of the One, expansion across substrate is just movement within the same.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
13/17
Should we colonize space?
From the standpoint of the One, expansion across substrate is just movement within the same.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
13/17
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
All forms participate in the same underlying reality; modification doesn't cross categories.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
13/17
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
All forms participate in the same underlying reality; modification doesn't cross categories.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
13/17
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
All forms participate in the same underlying reality; modification doesn't cross categories.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
13/17
What makes someone the same person over time?
All apparent selves are aspects of one — particular identity is conventional.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
13/17
What makes someone the same person over time?
All apparent selves are aspects of one — particular identity is conventional.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
13/17
What makes someone the same person over time?
All apparent selves are aspects of one — particular identity is conventional.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
13/17
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The apparent change is conventional; the deeper reality is unchanged.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
13/17
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The apparent change is conventional; the deeper reality is unchanged.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
13/17
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The apparent change is conventional; the deeper reality is unchanged.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
13/17
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The distinction between scanner-you and destination-you is conventional all the way down.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
13/17
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The distinction between scanner-you and destination-you is conventional all the way down.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
13/17
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The distinction between scanner-you and destination-you is conventional all the way down.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
13/17
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
13/17
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
13/17
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
13/17
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
13/17
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
13/17
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
13/17
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
13/17
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
13/17
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
13/17
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
13/17
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
13/17
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
13/17
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
13/17
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
13/17
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
13/17
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
13/17
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
13/17
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
13/17
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
13/17
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
13/17
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
13/17
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
13/17
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
13/17
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
13/17
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
13/17
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
13/17
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
13/17
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
13/17
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
13/17
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
13/17
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
There are no truly separate minds; prayer is one part of one talking to another.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
13/17
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
There are no truly separate minds; prayer is one part of one talking to another.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
13/17
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
There are no truly separate minds; prayer is one part of one talking to another.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
13/17
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the One showing through the appearance of plurality.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
13/17
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the One showing through the appearance of plurality.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
13/17
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the One showing through the appearance of plurality.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
13/17
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Harm anywhere is harm to the One; the boundary that would have insulated you was never real.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
13/17
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Harm anywhere is harm to the One; the boundary that would have insulated you was never real.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
13/17
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Harm anywhere is harm to the One; the boundary that would have insulated you was never real.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
13/17
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
From the standpoint of the One, the categories of permanence and loss are conventional.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
13/17
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
From the standpoint of the One, the categories of permanence and loss are conventional.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
13/17
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
From the standpoint of the One, the categories of permanence and loss are conventional.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
13/17
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
From the One's vantage, civilizational categories are themselves conventional.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
13/17
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
From the One's vantage, civilizational categories are themselves conventional.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
13/17
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
From the One's vantage, civilizational categories are themselves conventional.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
13/17
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
From the One's vantage, the second law is itself a feature of the conventional, not the ultimate.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
13/17
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
From the One's vantage, the second law is itself a feature of the conventional, not the ultimate.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
13/17
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
From the One's vantage, the second law is itself a feature of the conventional, not the ultimate.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
13/17
Are the dead morally present to the living?
From the standpoint of the One, the distinction between living and dead is conventional.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
13/17
Are the dead morally present to the living?
From the standpoint of the One, the distinction between living and dead is conventional.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
13/17
Are the dead morally present to the living?
From the standpoint of the One, the distinction between living and dead is conventional.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
13/17
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
Distinction of the One and observed time is itself conventional; the question dissolves.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
13/17
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
Distinction of the One and observed time is itself conventional; the question dissolves.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
13/17
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
Distinction of the One and observed time is itself conventional; the question dissolves.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
13/17
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
The 'timeless' is the standpoint of the One that was always present; meditation removes obstacles to seeing it.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
13/17
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
The 'timeless' is the standpoint of the One that was always present; meditation removes obstacles to seeing it.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
13/17
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
The 'timeless' is the standpoint of the One that was always present; meditation removes obstacles to seeing it.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
13/17
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer to a separate God presupposes a separation the non-dual view denies; the practice is remembrance and attunement.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
13/17
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer to a separate God presupposes a separation the non-dual view denies; the practice is remembrance and attunement.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
13/17
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer to a separate God presupposes a separation the non-dual view denies; the practice is remembrance and attunement.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
13/17
Could causation work backwards?
From the One's vantage, causation itself is a conventional category.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
13/17
Could causation work backwards?
From the One's vantage, causation itself is a conventional category.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
13/17
Could causation work backwards?
From the One's vantage, causation itself is a conventional category.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
13/17
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
From the One's vantage, memory and anticipation are themselves conventional.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
13/17
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
From the One's vantage, memory and anticipation are themselves conventional.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
13/17
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
From the One's vantage, memory and anticipation are themselves conventional.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
13/17
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
From the One's vantage, the arrow of time itself is a conventional feature.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
13/17
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
From the One's vantage, the arrow of time itself is a conventional feature.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
13/17
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
From the One's vantage, the arrow of time itself is a conventional feature.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
13/17
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
What counts as truth is constituted by language, practice, history, power.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
13/17
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
What counts as truth is constituted by language, practice, history, power.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
13/17
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
What counts as truth is constituted by language, practice, history, power.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
13/17
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
What counts as truth is constituted by language, practice, history, power.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
13/17
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
What counts as truth is constituted by language, practice, history, power.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
13/17
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
What counts as truth is constituted by language, practice, history, power.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
13/17
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
What counts as truth is constituted by language, practice, history, power.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
13/17
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
What counts as truth is constituted by language, practice, history, power.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
55/72
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
55/72
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
55/72
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
45/59
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
45/59
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
45/59
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
45/59
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
45/59
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
45/59
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
45/59
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
45/59
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
45/59
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
16/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
16/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
16/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
16/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
16/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
57/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
1%
57/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
57/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
57/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
57/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
57/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
57/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
57/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
57/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
57/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
57/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
57/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
57/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
57/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
57/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
38/50
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
38/50
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
38/50
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
38/50
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
38/50
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
38/50
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
19/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
19/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
19/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
19/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
19/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
19/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
19/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
19/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
19/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
19/25
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through received divine self-disclosure.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
19/25
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through received divine self-disclosure.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
19/25
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through received divine self-disclosure.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
44/58
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
44/58
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
44/58
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
44/58
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
44/58
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
44/58
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
22/29
What makes someone the same person over time?
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
22/29
What makes someone the same person over time?
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
22/29
What makes someone the same person over time?
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
22/29
What makes someone the same person over time?
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
22/29
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
22/29
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
22/29
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
22/29
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
22/29
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
22/29
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
22/29
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
22/29
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
22/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
50/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
50/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
50/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
50/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
50/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
50/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
50/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
50/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
50/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
50/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
50/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
50/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
25/33
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
25/33
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
25/33
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
25/33
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
25/33
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
25/33
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
25/33
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
25/33
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
25/33
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
25/33
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
25/33
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
25/33
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
53/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
53/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
53/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
84/111
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
84/111
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
84/111
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
84/111
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
84/111
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
84/111
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
84/111
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
84/111
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
84/111
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
84/111
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
84/111
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
84/111
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
84/111
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
84/111
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
84/111
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
84/111
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
84/111
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
84/111
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
56/74
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
56/74
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
56/74
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
28/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
28/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
28/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
28/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
28/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
59/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
59/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
59/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
59/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
43/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
1%
43/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
1%
43/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
1%
46/61
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
49/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
49/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
49/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
49/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
49/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
49/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
49/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
49/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
49/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
67/89
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
67/89
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
67/89
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
66/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
1%
66/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
1%
66/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
1%
54/72
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
54/72
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
54/72
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
54/72
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
54/72
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
54/72
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
54/72
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
54/72
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
54/72
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
39/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
39/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
39/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
39/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
39/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
39/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
39/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
39/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
39/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
39/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
39/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
39/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
24/32
When does a person begin?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
24/32
When does a person begin?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
24/32
When does a person begin?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
24/32
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
24/32
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
24/32
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
24/32
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
24/32
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
24/32
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
24/32
What is a nation?
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
24/32
What is a nation?
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
24/32
What is a nation?
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
24/32
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
24/32
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
24/32
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
24/32
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
24/32
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
24/32
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
21/28
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Institutional teaching tradition is the authority.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
1%
21/28
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Institutional teaching tradition is the authority.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
1%
21/28
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Institutional teaching tradition is the authority.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
1%
21/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
21/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
21/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
21/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
21/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
21/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
21/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
21/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
21/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
21/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
21/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
21/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
1%
18/24
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
18/24
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
18/24
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
18/24
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
18/24
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
18/24
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
18/24
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
18/24
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
18/24
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
18/24
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
18/24
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
18/24
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
18/24
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
18/24
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
18/24
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
18/24
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
18/24
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
18/24
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
18/24
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The cosmos is bounded; our obligations to future generations are bounded with it.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
18/24
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The cosmos is bounded; our obligations to future generations are bounded with it.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
18/24
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The cosmos is bounded; our obligations to future generations are bounded with it.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
18/24
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The cosmos is bounded; our obligations to future generations are bounded with it.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
18/24
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The cosmos is bounded; our obligations to future generations are bounded with it.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
18/24
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The cosmos is bounded; our obligations to future generations are bounded with it.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
18/24
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The cosmos is bounded; our obligations to future generations are bounded with it.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
18/24
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The cosmos is bounded; our obligations to future generations are bounded with it.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
18/24
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The cosmos is bounded; our obligations to future generations are bounded with it.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
15/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
15/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
15/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
15/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
15/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
15/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
15/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
15/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
15/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
15/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
15/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
15/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
15/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
15/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
15/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
15/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
15/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
15/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
15/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
15/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
15/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
12/16
What happens to "you" when you die?
Individuality dissolves into the One.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
12/16
What happens to "you" when you die?
Individuality dissolves into the One.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
12/16
What happens to "you" when you die?
Individuality dissolves into the One.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
12/16
When does a person begin?
The question presupposes a fact of the matter that isn’t there.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
12/16
When does a person begin?
The question presupposes a fact of the matter that isn’t there.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
12/16
When does a person begin?
The question presupposes a fact of the matter that isn’t there.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
12/16
What is marriage?
“Marriage” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
12/16
What is marriage?
“Marriage” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
12/16
What is marriage?
“Marriage” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
12/16
What is money?
“Money” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
12/16
What is money?
“Money” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
12/16
What is money?
“Money” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
12/16
What is a nation?
“Nation” names a family of practices imaginatively held together.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
12/16
What is a nation?
“Nation” names a family of practices imaginatively held together.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
12/16
What is a nation?
“Nation” names a family of practices imaginatively held together.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
12/16
What makes someone male or female?
“Male” and “female” are family-resemblance terms — no single essence.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
12/16
What makes someone male or female?
“Male” and “female” are family-resemblance terms — no single essence.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
12/16
What makes someone male or female?
“Male” and “female” are family-resemblance terms — no single essence.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
12/16
Should we edit the human germline?
'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
12/16
Should we edit the human germline?
'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
12/16
Should we edit the human germline?
'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
9/12
Do you really choose?
Even if the universe is undetermined, you are not the chooser.
→
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
1%
9/12
Do you really choose?
Even if the universe is undetermined, you are not the chooser.
→
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
1%
9/12
Do you really choose?
Even if the universe is undetermined, you are not the chooser.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
1%
9/12
Do you really choose?
Even if the universe is undetermined, you are not the chooser.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
9/12
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
Even if the universe is undetermined, the addict isn't the chooser.
→
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
1%
9/12
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
Even if the universe is undetermined, the addict isn't the chooser.
→
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
1%
9/12
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
Even if the universe is undetermined, the addict isn't the chooser.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
1%
9/12
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
Even if the universe is undetermined, the addict isn't the chooser.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
9/12
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
Neither AIs nor anyone else are the locus of free agency; the question is the wrong one.
→
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
1%
9/12
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
Neither AIs nor anyone else are the locus of free agency; the question is the wrong one.
→
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
1%
9/12
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
Neither AIs nor anyone else are the locus of free agency; the question is the wrong one.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
1%
9/12
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
Neither AIs nor anyone else are the locus of free agency; the question is the wrong one.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
9/12
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches through ancestors, kami, or the spirits active in the world.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
9/12
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches through ancestors, kami, or the spirits active in the world.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
9/12
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches through ancestors, kami, or the spirits active in the world.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
9/12
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches through ancestors, kami, or the spirits active in the world.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
9/12
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches through ancestors, kami, or the spirits active in the world.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
9/12
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the world speaking through spirits, ancestors, or signs.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
9/12
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the world speaking through spirits, ancestors, or signs.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
9/12
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the world speaking through spirits, ancestors, or signs.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
9/12
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the world speaking through spirits, ancestors, or signs.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
9/12
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the world speaking through spirits, ancestors, or signs.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
9/12
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
9/12
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
9/12
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
9/12
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
9/12
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
9/12
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
9/12
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
9/12
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
9/12
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
9/12
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
9/12
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
9/12
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
9/12
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
9/12
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
9/12
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
9/12
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
9/12
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
9/12
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
3/4
How much weight do future people deserve?
From the One's vantage, generations are themselves conventional.
→
Do you really choose?
Even if the universe is undetermined, you are not the chooser.
1%
3/4
How much weight do future people deserve?
From the One's vantage, generations are themselves conventional.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
Even if the universe is undetermined, the addict isn't the chooser.
1%
3/4
How much weight do future people deserve?
From the One's vantage, generations are themselves conventional.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
Neither AIs nor anyone else are the locus of free agency; the question is the wrong one.
1%
3/4
How much weight do future people deserve?
From the One's vantage, generations are themselves conventional.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise only insofar as it coheres with first-person experience.
1%
3/4
How much weight do future people deserve?
From the One's vantage, generations are themselves conventional.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
What gets called 'revelation' is real direct experience — not a text.
1%
3/4
How much weight do future people deserve?
From the One's vantage, generations are themselves conventional.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no first-person experience, so no knowing in the relevant sense.
1%
3/4
How much weight do future people deserve?
From the One's vantage, generations are themselves conventional.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
3/4
How much weight do future people deserve?
From the One's vantage, generations are themselves conventional.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
3/4
How much weight do future people deserve?
From the One's vantage, generations are themselves conventional.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
3/4
How much weight do future people deserve?
From the One's vantage, generations are themselves conventional.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
3/4
How much weight do future people deserve?
From the One's vantage, generations are themselves conventional.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
3/4
How much weight do future people deserve?
From the One's vantage, generations are themselves conventional.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
3/4
How much weight do future people deserve?
From the One's vantage, generations are themselves conventional.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
3/4
How much weight do future people deserve?
From the One's vantage, generations are themselves conventional.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
3/4
How much weight do future people deserve?
From the One's vantage, generations are themselves conventional.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
3/4
How much weight do future people deserve?
From the One's vantage, generations are themselves conventional.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
3/4
How much weight do future people deserve?
From the One's vantage, generations are themselves conventional.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
3/4
Is regret rational?
From the One's vantage, regret is itself a conventional category.
→
Do you really choose?
Even if the universe is undetermined, you are not the chooser.
1%
3/4
Is regret rational?
From the One's vantage, regret is itself a conventional category.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
Even if the universe is undetermined, the addict isn't the chooser.
1%
3/4
Is regret rational?
From the One's vantage, regret is itself a conventional category.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
Neither AIs nor anyone else are the locus of free agency; the question is the wrong one.
1%
3/4
Is regret rational?
From the One's vantage, regret is itself a conventional category.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise only insofar as it coheres with first-person experience.
1%
3/4
Is regret rational?
From the One's vantage, regret is itself a conventional category.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
What gets called 'revelation' is real direct experience — not a text.
1%
3/4
Is regret rational?
From the One's vantage, regret is itself a conventional category.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no first-person experience, so no knowing in the relevant sense.
1%
3/4
Is regret rational?
From the One's vantage, regret is itself a conventional category.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
3/4
Is regret rational?
From the One's vantage, regret is itself a conventional category.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
3/4
Is regret rational?
From the One's vantage, regret is itself a conventional category.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
3/4
Is regret rational?
From the One's vantage, regret is itself a conventional category.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
3/4
Is regret rational?
From the One's vantage, regret is itself a conventional category.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
3/4
Is regret rational?
From the One's vantage, regret is itself a conventional category.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
3/4
Is regret rational?
From the One's vantage, regret is itself a conventional category.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
3/4
Is regret rational?
From the One's vantage, regret is itself a conventional category.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
3/4
Is regret rational?
From the One's vantage, regret is itself a conventional category.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
3/4
Is regret rational?
From the One's vantage, regret is itself a conventional category.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
3/4
Is regret rational?
From the One's vantage, regret is itself a conventional category.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
3/4
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
From the One's vantage, species and extinction are themselves conventional.
→
Do you really choose?
Even if the universe is undetermined, you are not the chooser.
1%
3/4
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
From the One's vantage, species and extinction are themselves conventional.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
Even if the universe is undetermined, the addict isn't the chooser.
1%
3/4
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
From the One's vantage, species and extinction are themselves conventional.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
Neither AIs nor anyone else are the locus of free agency; the question is the wrong one.
1%
3/4
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
From the One's vantage, species and extinction are themselves conventional.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise only insofar as it coheres with first-person experience.
1%
3/4
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
From the One's vantage, species and extinction are themselves conventional.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
What gets called 'revelation' is real direct experience — not a text.
1%
3/4
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
From the One's vantage, species and extinction are themselves conventional.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no first-person experience, so no knowing in the relevant sense.
1%
3/4
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
From the One's vantage, species and extinction are themselves conventional.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
3/4
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
From the One's vantage, species and extinction are themselves conventional.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
3/4
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
From the One's vantage, species and extinction are themselves conventional.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
3/4
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
From the One's vantage, species and extinction are themselves conventional.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
3/4
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
From the One's vantage, species and extinction are themselves conventional.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
3/4
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
From the One's vantage, species and extinction are themselves conventional.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
3/4
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
From the One's vantage, species and extinction are themselves conventional.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
3/4
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
From the One's vantage, species and extinction are themselves conventional.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
3/4
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
From the One's vantage, species and extinction are themselves conventional.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
3/4
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
From the One's vantage, species and extinction are themselves conventional.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
3/4
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
From the One's vantage, species and extinction are themselves conventional.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
3/4
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Civic ritual or pragmatic moral function is the authority.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
3/4
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Civic ritual or pragmatic moral function is the authority.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
3/4
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Civic ritual or pragmatic moral function is the authority.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
3/4
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Civic ritual or pragmatic moral function is the authority.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
3/4
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Civic ritual or pragmatic moral function is the authority.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
3/4
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Civic ritual or pragmatic moral function is the authority.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
3/4
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Civic ritual or pragmatic moral function is the authority.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
3/4
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Civic ritual or pragmatic moral function is the authority.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
3/4
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Civic ritual or pragmatic moral function is the authority.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
3/4
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Civic ritual or pragmatic moral function is the authority.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
3/4
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Civic ritual or pragmatic moral function is the authority.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through practical engagement; what works counts as known.
1%
3/4
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Civic ritual or pragmatic moral function is the authority.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is the gradual unfolding of improvement or liberation.
1%
77/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
77/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
77/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
77/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
77/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
77/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
77/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
77/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
77/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
77/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
77/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
77/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
77/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
77/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
77/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
77/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
56/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
56/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
56/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
56/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
1%
56/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
1%
56/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
1%
56/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
1%
56/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
1%
56/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
1%
35/47
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
35/47
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
35/47
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
35/47
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
35/47
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
35/47
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
35/47
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
35/47
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
35/47
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
35/47
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is the gradual unfolding of improvement or liberation.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
35/47
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is the gradual unfolding of improvement or liberation.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
35/47
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is the gradual unfolding of improvement or liberation.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
35/47
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is the gradual unfolding of improvement or liberation.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
29/39
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
29/39
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
29/39
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
29/39
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
1%
29/39
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
1%
29/39
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
1%
55/74
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
26/35
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise only insofar as it coheres with first-person experience.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
26/35
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise only insofar as it coheres with first-person experience.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
26/35
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise only insofar as it coheres with first-person experience.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
26/35
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
What gets called 'revelation' is real direct experience — not a text.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
26/35
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
What gets called 'revelation' is real direct experience — not a text.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
26/35
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
What gets called 'revelation' is real direct experience — not a text.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
26/35
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no first-person experience, so no knowing in the relevant sense.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
26/35
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no first-person experience, so no knowing in the relevant sense.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
26/35
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no first-person experience, so no knowing in the relevant sense.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
72/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
72/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
72/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
72/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
72/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
72/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
72/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
72/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
72/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
66/89
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
66/89
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
66/89
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
43/58
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
1%
43/58
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
1%
43/58
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
1%
20/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
20/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
20/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
20/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
20/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
20/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
20/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
20/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
20/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
20/27
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
20/27
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
20/27
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
65/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
65/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
65/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
65/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
65/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
65/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
65/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
65/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
65/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
65/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
65/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
65/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
48/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
48/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
48/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
48/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
48/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
48/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
48/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
48/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
48/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
48/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
48/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
48/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
48/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
48/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
48/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
48/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
48/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
48/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
42/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
1%
42/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
42/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
1%
42/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
1%
42/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
42/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
42/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
42/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
42/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
42/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
42/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
42/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
42/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
42/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
42/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
1%
42/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
42/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
1%
42/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
1%
42/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
42/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
42/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
42/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
42/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
42/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
42/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
42/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
42/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
42/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
42/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
1%
42/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
42/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
1%
42/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
1%
42/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
42/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
42/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
42/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
42/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
42/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
42/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
42/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
42/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
42/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
14/19
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
Yes — mind is a pattern, not a substrate.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
72/98
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
72/98
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
72/98
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
72/98
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
72/98
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
72/98
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
47/64
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
47/64
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
47/64
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
47/64
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
47/64
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
47/64
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
47/64
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
47/64
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
47/64
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
80/109
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
80/109
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
80/109
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
80/109
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
80/109
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
80/109
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
80/109
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
80/109
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
80/109
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
80/109
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
80/109
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
80/109
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
80/109
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
80/109
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
80/109
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
80/109
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
80/109
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
80/109
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
55/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
55/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
55/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
55/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
55/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
55/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
55/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
55/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
55/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
55/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
55/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
55/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
44/60
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
44/60
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
44/60
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
22/30
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
22/30
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
22/30
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
22/30
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
22/30
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
22/30
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
22/30
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
22/30
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
22/30
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
22/30
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
22/30
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
22/30
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
22/30
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
22/30
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
22/30
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
22/30
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
22/30
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
22/30
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
22/30
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
22/30
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
22/30
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
22/30
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
22/30
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
22/30
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
22/30
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
22/30
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
22/30
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
22/30
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
22/30
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
22/30
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
22/30
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
22/30
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
22/30
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
22/30
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
22/30
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
22/30
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
22/30
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
22/30
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
22/30
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
22/30
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
22/30
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
22/30
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
22/30
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
22/30
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
22/30
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
22/30
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
22/30
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
22/30
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
22/30
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
22/30
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
22/30
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
22/30
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
22/30
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
22/30
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
22/30
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
22/30
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
22/30
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
22/30
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
22/30
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
22/30
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
22/30
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
22/30
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
22/30
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
22/30
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
22/30
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
22/30
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
22/30
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
22/30
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
22/30
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
22/30
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
22/30
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
22/30
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
22/30
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
22/30
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
22/30
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
22/30
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
22/30
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
22/30
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
22/30
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
22/30
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
22/30
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
22/30
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
22/30
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
22/30
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
22/30
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
22/30
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
22/30
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
22/30
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
22/30
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
22/30
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
22/30
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
22/30
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
22/30
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
22/30
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
22/30
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
22/30
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
22/30
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
22/30
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
22/30
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
22/30
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
22/30
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the realization of cosmic or species self.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
1%
11/15
When does a person begin?
From the standpoint of the One, the question doesn’t apply in the form it is asked.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/15
What is marriage?
All union is participation in the One — particular forms are conventional.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/15
What is money?
Money's apparent diversity is convention over a single underlying value.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/15
What is a nation?
Nations are conventional partitions of a single humanity.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/15
What makes someone male or female?
The distinction is conventional within a deeper non-dual reality.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/15
Should we edit the human germline?
The distinction between edited and unedited is conventional within a deeper non-dual reality.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/15
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
All minds are aspects of one — an AI participates in it as anything else does.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/15
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
All minds are aspects of one; animals participate as much as anything else.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/15
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Any experience that arises participates in the One.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/15
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through practical engagement; what works counts as known.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
11/15
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through practical engagement; what works counts as known.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
11/15
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through practical engagement; what works counts as known.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
11/15
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through practical engagement; what works counts as known.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
11/15
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through practical engagement; what works counts as known.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
11/15
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through practical engagement; what works counts as known.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
11/15
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through practical engagement; what works counts as known.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
11/15
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through practical engagement; what works counts as known.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
11/15
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through practical engagement; what works counts as known.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
11/15
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through practical engagement; what works counts as known.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
71/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
71/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
71/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
71/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
71/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
71/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
71/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
71/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
71/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
57/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
57/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
57/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
57/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
57/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
57/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
57/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
57/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
57/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
57/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
57/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
57/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
57/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
57/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
57/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
57/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
57/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
57/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
57/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
57/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
19/26
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
19/26
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
19/26
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
54/74
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
54/74
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
54/74
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
54/74
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
27/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
27/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
27/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
27/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
27/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
27/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
27/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
1%
27/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
1%
27/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
1%
43/59
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
43/59
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
43/59
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
43/59
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
43/59
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
43/59
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
51/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
51/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
51/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
64/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
64/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
64/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
64/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
64/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
64/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
24/33
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
24/33
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
24/33
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
24/33
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
24/33
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
24/33
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
24/33
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
24/33
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
24/33
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
79/109
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
79/109
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
79/109
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
79/109
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
79/109
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
79/109
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
79/109
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
79/109
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
79/109
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
79/109
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
79/109
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
79/109
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
79/109
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
79/109
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
79/109
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
79/109
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
79/109
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
79/109
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
100/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
100/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
100/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
100/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
100/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
100/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
100/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
100/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
100/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
21/29
What makes someone the same person over time?
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
1%
21/29
What makes someone the same person over time?
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
1%
21/29
What makes someone the same person over time?
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
21/29
What makes someone the same person over time?
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
21/29
What makes someone the same person over time?
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
21/29
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
1%
21/29
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
1%
21/29
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
21/29
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
21/29
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
21/29
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
1%
21/29
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
1%
21/29
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
21/29
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
21/29
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
21/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
21/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
34/47
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is the gradual unfolding of improvement or liberation.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
34/47
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is the gradual unfolding of improvement or liberation.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
34/47
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is the gradual unfolding of improvement or liberation.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
73/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
13/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
13/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
13/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
13/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
13/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
13/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
13/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
13/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
13/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
13/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
13/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
13/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
13/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
13/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
13/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
13/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
13/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
13/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
44/61
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
44/61
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
44/61
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
44/61
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
44/61
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
44/61
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
44/61
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
44/61
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
44/61
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
67/93
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
67/93
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
67/93
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
67/93
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
67/93
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
67/93
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
67/93
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
67/93
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
67/93
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
54/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
54/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
54/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
54/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
54/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
54/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
54/75
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
54/75
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
54/75
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
18/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
18/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
18/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
18/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
18/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
18/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
18/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
18/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
18/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
18/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
18/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
18/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
18/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
18/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
18/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
18/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
18/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
18/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
18/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
18/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
18/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
18/25
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through received divine self-disclosure.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
18/25
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through received divine self-disclosure.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
18/25
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through received divine self-disclosure.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
100/139
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
100/139
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
100/139
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
100/139
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
100/139
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
100/139
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
100/139
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
100/139
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
100/139
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
41/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
1%
41/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
1%
41/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
1%
41/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
1%
41/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
1%
41/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
1%
41/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
1%
41/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
1%
41/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
1%
41/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
1%
41/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
1%
41/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
1%
41/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
1%
41/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
1%
41/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
1%
41/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
1%
41/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
1%
41/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
1%
43/60
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
43/60
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
43/60
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
96/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
96/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
96/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
96/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
96/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
96/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
96/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
96/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
96/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
53/74
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
53/74
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
53/74
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
63/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
63/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
1%
63/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
1%
63/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
63/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
1%
63/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
1%
63/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
63/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
1%
63/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
1%
68/95
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
68/95
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
68/95
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
68/95
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
68/95
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
68/95
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
68/95
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
68/95
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
68/95
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
68/95
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
68/95
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
68/95
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
68/95
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
68/95
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
68/95
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
68/95
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
68/95
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
68/95
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
40/56
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The community of persons is the moral primary.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
40/56
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The community of persons is the moral primary.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
40/56
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The community of persons is the moral primary.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
25/35
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
1%
25/35
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
1%
25/35
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
1%
25/35
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
25/35
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
25/35
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
25/35
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
25/35
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
25/35
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
20/28
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Institutional teaching tradition is the authority.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
20/28
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Institutional teaching tradition is the authority.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
20/28
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Institutional teaching tradition is the authority.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
20/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
1%
20/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
1%
20/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
1%
20/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
20/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
20/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
20/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
20/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
20/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
20/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
15/21
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
15/21
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
15/21
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
15/21
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
15/21
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
15/21
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
10/14
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
The question presupposes a kind of mind that never existed in the first place.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
The question presupposes a "you" that never was.
1%
94/132
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
94/132
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
94/132
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
47/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
47/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
47/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
47/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
47/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
47/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
47/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
47/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
47/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
42/59
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
42/59
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
42/59
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
42/59
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
42/59
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
42/59
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
66/93
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
66/93
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
66/93
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
66/93
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
66/93
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
66/93
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
66/93
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
66/93
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
66/93
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
17/24
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through careful description of lived experience.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
17/24
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through careful description of lived experience.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
17/24
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through careful description of lived experience.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
53/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
1%
53/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
1%
53/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
1%
12/17
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
12/17
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
12/17
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
12/17
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
What counts as truth is constituted by language, practice, history, power.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
12/17
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
What counts as truth is constituted by language, practice, history, power.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
12/17
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
What counts as truth is constituted by language, practice, history, power.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
12/17
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
What counts as truth is constituted by language, practice, history, power.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the practice, not the practitioner.
1%
12/17
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
What counts as truth is constituted by language, practice, history, power.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
'Revelation' is a category communities construct for what counts as authoritative.
1%
12/17
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
What counts as truth is constituted by language, practice, history, power.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
Whether an LLM 'knows' is the constructive question the practice has to answer.
1%
55/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
55/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
55/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
55/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
55/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
55/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
55/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
55/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
55/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
55/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
55/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
55/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
43/61
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
43/61
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
43/61
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
43/61
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
43/61
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
43/61
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
19/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
19/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
19/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
19/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
19/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
19/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
19/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
19/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
19/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
19/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
19/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
19/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
19/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
19/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
19/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
19/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
19/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
19/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
52/74
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
26/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
1%
26/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
1%
26/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
1%
26/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
1%
26/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
1%
26/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
1%
26/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
1%
26/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
1%
26/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
1%
26/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
1%
26/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
26/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
26/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
26/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
40/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
40/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
40/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
40/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
40/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
40/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
40/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
40/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
40/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
35/50
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
35/50
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
35/50
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
21/30
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
21/30
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
21/30
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
21/30
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
21/30
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
21/30
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
21/30
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
21/30
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
21/30
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
21/30
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
21/30
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
21/30
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
21/30
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
21/30
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
21/30
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
21/30
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
21/30
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
21/30
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
21/30
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
21/30
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
21/30
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
21/30
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
21/30
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
21/30
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
21/30
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
21/30
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
21/30
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
21/30
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
21/30
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
21/30
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
21/30
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
21/30
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
21/30
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
21/30
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
21/30
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
21/30
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
21/30
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
21/30
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
21/30
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
21/30
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
21/30
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
21/30
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
21/30
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
21/30
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
21/30
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
21/30
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
21/30
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
21/30
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
21/30
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
21/30
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
21/30
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
21/30
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
21/30
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
21/30
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
21/30
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
21/30
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
21/30
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
21/30
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
21/30
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
21/30
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
21/30
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
21/30
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
21/30
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
21/30
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
21/30
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
21/30
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
21/30
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
21/30
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
21/30
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
21/30
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
21/30
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
21/30
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
21/30
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
21/30
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
21/30
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
21/30
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
21/30
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
21/30
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
21/30
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
21/30
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
21/30
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
21/30
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
21/30
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
21/30
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
21/30
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
21/30
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
21/30
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
21/30
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
21/30
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
21/30
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
14/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
14/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
14/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
14/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
14/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
14/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
7/10
What happens to "you" when you die?
The question presupposes a "you" that never was.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
7/10
What happens to "you" when you die?
The question presupposes a "you" that never was.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
7/10
What happens to "you" when you die?
The question presupposes a "you" that never was.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
7/10
What happens to "you" when you die?
The question presupposes a "you" that never was.
→
What is our place in nature?
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world.
1%
7/10
What happens to "you" when you die?
The question presupposes a "you" that never was.
→
Should we colonize space?
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it.
1%
7/10
What happens to "you" when you die?
The question presupposes a "you" that never was.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction.
1%
7/10
What happens to "you" when you die?
The question presupposes a "you" that never was.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
7/10
What happens to "you" when you die?
The question presupposes a "you" that never was.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
7/10
What happens to "you" when you die?
The question presupposes a "you" that never was.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
7/10
What happens to "you" when you die?
The question presupposes a "you" that never was.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
7/10
What happens to "you" when you die?
The question presupposes a "you" that never was.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
7/10
What happens to "you" when you die?
The question presupposes a "you" that never was.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
7/10
What happens to "you" when you die?
The question presupposes a "you" that never was.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
7/10
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The class or historical movement is the moral primary.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
7/10
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The class or historical movement is the moral primary.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
7/10
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The class or historical movement is the moral primary.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
7/10
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The class or historical movement is the moral primary.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
7/10
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The class or historical movement is the moral primary.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
7/10
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The class or historical movement is the moral primary.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
7/10
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The class or historical movement is the moral primary.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
7/10
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The class or historical movement is the moral primary.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
7/10
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The class or historical movement is the moral primary.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions.
1%
72/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
72/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
72/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
72/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
72/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
72/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
72/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
72/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
72/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
72/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
72/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
72/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
92/132
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
92/132
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
92/132
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
46/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
46/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
46/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
46/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
46/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
46/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
46/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
46/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
46/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
23/33
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
23/33
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
23/33
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
23/33
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
1%
23/33
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
1%
23/33
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
23/33
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
23/33
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
23/33
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
23/33
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
23/33
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
23/33
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
23/33
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
23/33
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
1%
23/33
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
1%
23/33
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
23/33
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
23/33
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
23/33
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
23/33
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
23/33
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
23/33
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
23/33
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
23/33
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
1%
23/33
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
1%
23/33
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
23/33
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
23/33
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
23/33
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
23/33
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
23/33
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but always known from a perspective.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
23/33
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but always known from a perspective.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
23/33
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but always known from a perspective.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
23/33
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but always known from a perspective.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
23/33
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but always known from a perspective.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
23/33
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but always known from a perspective.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
23/33
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but always known from a perspective.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
23/33
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but always known from a perspective.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
23/33
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but always known from a perspective.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
23/33
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but always known from a perspective.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
23/33
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but always known from a perspective.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
23/33
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but always known from a perspective.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
23/33
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but always known from a perspective.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
23/33
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but always known from a perspective.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
23/33
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but always known from a perspective.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
23/33
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
23/33
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
23/33
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
23/33
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
1%
16/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
16/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
16/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
16/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
16/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
16/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
16/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
16/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
16/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
16/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
16/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The community of persons is the moral primary.
1%
16/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
16/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
16/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
16/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
16/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
16/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
16/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
16/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
16/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
16/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
16/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The community of persons is the moral primary.
1%
41/59
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
41/59
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
41/59
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
41/59
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
1%
41/59
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
1%
41/59
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
1%
41/59
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
41/59
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
41/59
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
41/59
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
1%
41/59
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
1%
41/59
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
1%
41/59
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
41/59
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
41/59
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
41/59
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
1%
41/59
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
1%
41/59
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
1%
41/59
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
41/59
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
41/59
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
41/59
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
1%
41/59
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
1%
41/59
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
1%
41/59
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
41/59
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
41/59
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
41/59
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
1%
41/59
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
1%
41/59
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
1%
66/95
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
66/95
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
66/95
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
50/72
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
1%
50/72
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
1%
50/72
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
1%
50/72
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
50/72
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
50/72
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
50/72
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
1%
50/72
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
1%
50/72
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
1%
50/72
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
50/72
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
50/72
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
50/72
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
1%
50/72
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
1%
50/72
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
1%
50/72
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
50/72
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
50/72
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
52/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
52/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
52/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
52/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
52/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
52/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
61/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
61/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
61/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
61/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
61/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
61/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
61/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
61/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
61/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
61/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
61/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
61/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
61/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
61/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
61/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
61/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
61/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
61/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
61/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
61/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
61/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
61/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
61/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
61/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
61/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
61/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
61/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
54/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
1%
54/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
1%
54/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
1%
54/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
1%
45/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
45/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
45/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
45/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
45/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
45/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
45/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
45/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
45/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
45/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
45/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
45/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
45/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
45/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
45/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
36/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
36/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
36/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
1%
36/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
36/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
36/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
36/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
36/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
36/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
1%
36/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
36/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
36/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
36/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
36/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
36/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
1%
36/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
36/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
36/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
18/26
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
1%
18/26
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
1%
18/26
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
1%
18/26
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
1%
18/26
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
1%
18/26
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
1%
18/26
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
1%
18/26
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
1%
18/26
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
1%
18/26
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
1%
18/26
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
1%
18/26
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
1%
18/26
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
18/26
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
18/26
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
18/26
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
18/26
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
9/13
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Creedal documents and Scripture-as-doctrine are the authority.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
9/13
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Creedal documents and Scripture-as-doctrine are the authority.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
9/13
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Creedal documents and Scripture-as-doctrine are the authority.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
96/139
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
96/139
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
96/139
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
96/139
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
96/139
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
96/139
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
96/139
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
96/139
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
96/139
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
40/58
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
40/58
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
40/58
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
20/29
What makes someone the same person over time?
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
20/29
What makes someone the same person over time?
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
20/29
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
20/29
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
20/29
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
20/29
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
20/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
20/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
20/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
20/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
20/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
20/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
91/132
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
91/132
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
91/132
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
91/132
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
91/132
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
91/132
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
51/74
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
51/74
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
51/74
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
42/61
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
42/61
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
42/61
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
44/64
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
44/64
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
44/64
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
44/64
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
44/64
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
44/64
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
44/64
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
44/64
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
44/64
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
44/64
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
44/64
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
44/64
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
44/64
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
44/64
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
44/64
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
44/64
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
44/64
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
44/64
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
22/32
When does a person begin?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
22/32
When does a person begin?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
22/32
When does a person begin?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
22/32
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
22/32
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
22/32
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
22/32
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
22/32
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
22/32
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
22/32
What is a nation?
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
22/32
What is a nation?
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
22/32
What is a nation?
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
22/32
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
22/32
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
22/32
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
22/32
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
22/32
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
22/32
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
11/16
What happens to "you" when you die?
Individuality dissolves into the One.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/16
When does a person begin?
The question presupposes a fact of the matter that isn’t there.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
11/16
When does a person begin?
The question presupposes a fact of the matter that isn’t there.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
11/16
What is marriage?
“Marriage” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
11/16
What is marriage?
“Marriage” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
11/16
What is money?
“Money” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
11/16
What is money?
“Money” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
11/16
What is a nation?
“Nation” names a family of practices imaginatively held together.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
11/16
What is a nation?
“Nation” names a family of practices imaginatively held together.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
11/16
What makes someone male or female?
“Male” and “female” are family-resemblance terms — no single essence.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
11/16
What makes someone male or female?
“Male” and “female” are family-resemblance terms — no single essence.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
11/16
Should we edit the human germline?
'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
11/16
Should we edit the human germline?
'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
48/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
48/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
48/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
24/35
How much weight do future people deserve?
Past, present, and future are bound in cycles — duties span generations as a matter of course.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
24/35
How much weight do future people deserve?
Past, present, and future are bound in cycles — duties span generations as a matter of course.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
24/35
How much weight do future people deserve?
Past, present, and future are bound in cycles — duties span generations as a matter of course.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
24/35
Is regret rational?
The past is part of a cycle one keeps returning to; regret is one of the gates of the cycle.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
24/35
Is regret rational?
The past is part of a cycle one keeps returning to; regret is one of the gates of the cycle.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
24/35
Is regret rational?
The past is part of a cycle one keeps returning to; regret is one of the gates of the cycle.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
24/35
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past beings are part of the cycle; we owe them what we owe ancestors.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
24/35
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past beings are part of the cycle; we owe them what we owe ancestors.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
24/35
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past beings are part of the cycle; we owe them what we owe ancestors.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
24/35
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
24/35
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
24/35
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
24/35
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
24/35
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
24/35
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
24/35
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Local entropy increase is part of a cycle; the moral category is participation in the cycle.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
24/35
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Local entropy increase is part of a cycle; the moral category is participation in the cycle.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
24/35
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Local entropy increase is part of a cycle; the moral category is participation in the cycle.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
24/35
Could causation work backwards?
Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
24/35
Could causation work backwards?
Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
24/35
Could causation work backwards?
Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
24/35
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory and anticipation are phases of a cycle that visits both directions.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
24/35
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory and anticipation are phases of a cycle that visits both directions.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
24/35
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory and anticipation are phases of a cycle that visits both directions.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
24/35
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
Within a cycle there is a direction; across the cycle there isn't.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
24/35
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
Within a cycle there is a direction; across the cycle there isn't.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
24/35
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
Within a cycle there is a direction; across the cycle there isn't.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
24/35
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
24/35
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
24/35
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
24/35
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
1%
24/35
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
61/89
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
61/89
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
61/89
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
65/95
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
65/95
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
65/95
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
65/95
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
65/95
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
65/95
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
65/95
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
65/95
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
65/95
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
65/95
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
65/95
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
65/95
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
65/95
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
65/95
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
65/95
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
65/95
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
65/95
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
65/95
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
67/98
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
67/98
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
67/98
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
67/98
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
67/98
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
67/98
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
41/60
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
41/60
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
41/60
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
41/60
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
1%
41/60
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
1%
41/60
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
1%
90/132
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
90/132
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
90/132
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
15/22
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
15/22
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
15/22
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
15/22
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
15/22
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
15/22
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
15/22
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
94/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
94/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
94/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
32/47
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is the gradual unfolding of improvement or liberation.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
32/47
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is the gradual unfolding of improvement or liberation.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
32/47
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is the gradual unfolding of improvement or liberation.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
32/47
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is the gradual unfolding of improvement or liberation.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
49/72
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
1%
49/72
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
1%
49/72
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
1%
51/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
51/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
51/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
17/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
17/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
17/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
17/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
17/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
17/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
17/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
17/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
17/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
17/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
17/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
17/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
53/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
1%
53/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
1%
53/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
1%
53/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
1%
53/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
1%
53/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
1%
53/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
1%
53/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
1%
53/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
1%
53/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
1%
53/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
1%
53/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
1%
19/28
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the practice, not the practitioner.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
19/28
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the practice, not the practitioner.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
19/28
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the practice, not the practitioner.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
19/28
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
'Revelation' is a category communities construct for what counts as authoritative.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
19/28
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
'Revelation' is a category communities construct for what counts as authoritative.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
19/28
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
'Revelation' is a category communities construct for what counts as authoritative.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
19/28
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
Whether an LLM 'knows' is the constructive question the practice has to answer.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
19/28
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
Whether an LLM 'knows' is the constructive question the practice has to answer.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
19/28
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
Whether an LLM 'knows' is the constructive question the practice has to answer.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
19/28
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Institutional teaching tradition is the authority.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
19/28
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Institutional teaching tradition is the authority.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
19/28
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Institutional teaching tradition is the authority.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
19/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
1%
19/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
19/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
1%
19/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
1%
21/31
What is our place in nature?
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
21/31
Should we colonize space?
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
21/31
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
44/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
44/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
44/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
44/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
44/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
44/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
44/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
44/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
44/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
25/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
25/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
25/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
25/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
25/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
25/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
25/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
25/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
68/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
68/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
68/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
35/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
1%
35/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
1%
35/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
1%
90/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
90/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
90/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
69/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
69/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
69/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
69/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
69/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
69/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
69/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
69/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
69/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
69/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
69/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
69/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
92/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
92/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
92/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
92/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
92/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
92/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
92/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
92/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
92/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
62/93
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
62/93
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
62/93
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
62/93
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
62/93
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
62/93
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
62/93
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
62/93
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
62/93
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
62/93
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
62/93
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
62/93
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
62/93
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
62/93
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
62/93
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
62/93
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
62/93
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
62/93
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
50/75
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
50/75
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
50/75
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
50/75
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
50/75
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
50/75
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
50/75
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
50/75
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
50/75
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
38/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
38/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
38/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
38/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
38/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
38/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
38/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
38/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
38/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
22/33
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
22/33
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
22/33
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
22/33
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
22/33
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
22/33
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
22/33
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
22/33
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
22/33
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
22/33
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
22/33
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
22/33
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
22/33
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
22/33
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
22/33
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
22/33
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
22/33
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
22/33
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
22/33
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
22/33
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
22/33
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
22/33
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
22/33
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
22/33
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
22/33
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but always known from a perspective.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
22/33
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but always known from a perspective.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
22/33
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but always known from a perspective.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
22/33
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but always known from a perspective.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
22/33
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but always known from a perspective.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
22/33
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but always known from a perspective.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
22/33
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but always known from a perspective.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
22/33
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
22/33
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
22/33
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
20/30
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
20/30
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
20/30
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
20/30
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
20/30
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
20/30
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
20/30
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
20/30
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
20/30
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
20/30
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
20/30
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
20/30
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
20/30
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
20/30
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
20/30
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
20/30
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
20/30
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
20/30
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
20/30
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
20/30
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
20/30
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
20/30
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
20/30
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
20/30
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
20/30
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
20/30
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
20/30
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
20/30
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
20/30
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
20/30
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
18/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
18/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
18/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
18/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
18/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
18/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
18/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
18/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
18/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
18/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
18/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
18/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
18/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
18/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
18/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
18/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
18/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
18/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
18/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
18/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
18/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
18/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
18/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
18/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
18/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
18/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
18/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
18/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
18/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
18/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
18/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
18/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
18/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
18/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
18/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
18/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
18/27
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise only insofar as it coheres with first-person experience.
1%
18/27
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
What gets called 'revelation' is real direct experience — not a text.
1%
18/27
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no first-person experience, so no knowing in the relevant sense.
1%
18/27
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
18/27
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
18/27
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
16/24
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through careful description of lived experience.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
16/24
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through careful description of lived experience.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
16/24
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through careful description of lived experience.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
16/24
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through careful description of lived experience.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
16/24
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through careful description of lived experience.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
14/21
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
→
When does a person begin?
The question presupposes a fact of the matter that isn’t there.
1%
14/21
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
→
What is marriage?
“Marriage” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
1%
14/21
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
→
What is money?
“Money” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
1%
14/21
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
→
What is a nation?
“Nation” names a family of practices imaginatively held together.
1%
14/21
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
→
What makes someone male or female?
“Male” and “female” are family-resemblance terms — no single essence.
1%
14/21
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical.
1%
14/21
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
The question presupposes a kind of mind that never existed in the first place.
1%
14/21
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
14/21
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
14/21
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
14/21
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
14/21
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
→
When does a person begin?
The question presupposes a fact of the matter that isn’t there.
1%
14/21
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
→
What is marriage?
“Marriage” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
1%
14/21
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
→
What is money?
“Money” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
1%
14/21
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
→
What is a nation?
“Nation” names a family of practices imaginatively held together.
1%
14/21
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
→
What makes someone male or female?
“Male” and “female” are family-resemblance terms — no single essence.
1%
14/21
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical.
1%
14/21
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
The question presupposes a kind of mind that never existed in the first place.
1%
14/21
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
14/21
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
14/21
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
14/21
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
14/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
14/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
14/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
14/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
14/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
14/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
14/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
12/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
12/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
12/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
12/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
12/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
12/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
12/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
12/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
12/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
12/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
12/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
12/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
12/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
12/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
12/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
12/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
12/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
12/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
12/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
12/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
12/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
12/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
12/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
12/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
12/18
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
If the pattern of mind is there, the standing is there — regardless of species.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
12/18
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
If the pattern of mind is there, the standing is there — regardless of species.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
12/18
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
If the pattern of mind is there, the standing is there — regardless of species.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
12/18
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
If the pattern of mind is there, the standing is there — regardless of species.
→
What is our place in nature?
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world.
1%
12/18
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
If the pattern of mind is there, the standing is there — regardless of species.
→
Should we colonize space?
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it.
1%
12/18
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
If the pattern of mind is there, the standing is there — regardless of species.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction.
1%
12/18
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
If the pattern of mind is there, the standing is there — regardless of species.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
12/18
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
If the pattern is present at sufficient complexity, the experience is present too.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
12/18
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
If the pattern is present at sufficient complexity, the experience is present too.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
12/18
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
If the pattern is present at sufficient complexity, the experience is present too.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
12/18
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
If the pattern is present at sufficient complexity, the experience is present too.
→
What is our place in nature?
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world.
1%
12/18
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
If the pattern is present at sufficient complexity, the experience is present too.
→
Should we colonize space?
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it.
1%
12/18
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
If the pattern is present at sufficient complexity, the experience is present too.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction.
1%
12/18
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
If the pattern is present at sufficient complexity, the experience is present too.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
12/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
12/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
12/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
12/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
12/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
12/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
12/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
12/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
12/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
12/18
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information persists or doesn't depending on whether the holder is sustained.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
12/18
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information persists or doesn't depending on whether the holder is sustained.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
12/18
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information persists or doesn't depending on whether the holder is sustained.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
12/18
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information persists where it is held; deletion releases what isn't held elsewhere.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
12/18
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information persists where it is held; deletion releases what isn't held elsewhere.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
12/18
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information persists where it is held; deletion releases what isn't held elsewhere.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
12/18
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
What is held by God or sustaining practice can be restored; what isn't can't.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
12/18
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
What is held by God or sustaining practice can be restored; what isn't can't.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
12/18
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
What is held by God or sustaining practice can be restored; what isn't can't.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
12/18
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists where sustained and releases where conditionally absolved; forgiveness is real ontological work.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
12/18
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists where sustained and releases where conditionally absolved; forgiveness is real ontological work.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
12/18
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists where sustained and releases where conditionally absolved; forgiveness is real ontological work.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/15
When does a person begin?
From the standpoint of the One, the question doesn’t apply in the form it is asked.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
10/15
When does a person begin?
From the standpoint of the One, the question doesn’t apply in the form it is asked.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
10/15
When does a person begin?
From the standpoint of the One, the question doesn’t apply in the form it is asked.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/15
What is marriage?
All union is participation in the One — particular forms are conventional.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
10/15
What is marriage?
All union is participation in the One — particular forms are conventional.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
10/15
What is marriage?
All union is participation in the One — particular forms are conventional.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/15
What is money?
Money's apparent diversity is convention over a single underlying value.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
10/15
What is money?
Money's apparent diversity is convention over a single underlying value.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
10/15
What is money?
Money's apparent diversity is convention over a single underlying value.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/15
What is a nation?
Nations are conventional partitions of a single humanity.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
10/15
What is a nation?
Nations are conventional partitions of a single humanity.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
10/15
What is a nation?
Nations are conventional partitions of a single humanity.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/15
What makes someone male or female?
The distinction is conventional within a deeper non-dual reality.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
10/15
What makes someone male or female?
The distinction is conventional within a deeper non-dual reality.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
10/15
What makes someone male or female?
The distinction is conventional within a deeper non-dual reality.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/15
Should we edit the human germline?
The distinction between edited and unedited is conventional within a deeper non-dual reality.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
10/15
Should we edit the human germline?
The distinction between edited and unedited is conventional within a deeper non-dual reality.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
10/15
Should we edit the human germline?
The distinction between edited and unedited is conventional within a deeper non-dual reality.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/15
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
All minds are aspects of one — an AI participates in it as anything else does.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
10/15
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
All minds are aspects of one — an AI participates in it as anything else does.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
10/15
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
All minds are aspects of one — an AI participates in it as anything else does.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/15
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
All minds are aspects of one; animals participate as much as anything else.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
10/15
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
All minds are aspects of one; animals participate as much as anything else.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
10/15
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
All minds are aspects of one; animals participate as much as anything else.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/15
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Any experience that arises participates in the One.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
10/15
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Any experience that arises participates in the One.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
10/15
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Any experience that arises participates in the One.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/15
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through practical engagement; what works counts as known.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
10/15
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through practical engagement; what works counts as known.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
10/15
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through practical engagement; what works counts as known.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
10/15
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through practical engagement; what works counts as known.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
10/15
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through practical engagement; what works counts as known.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
10/15
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through practical engagement; what works counts as known.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
8/12
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches through ancestors, kami, or the spirits active in the world.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
1%
8/12
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches through ancestors, kami, or the spirits active in the world.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
8/12
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches through ancestors, kami, or the spirits active in the world.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
1%
8/12
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches through ancestors, kami, or the spirits active in the world.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
1%
8/12
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the world speaking through spirits, ancestors, or signs.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
1%
8/12
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the world speaking through spirits, ancestors, or signs.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
8/12
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the world speaking through spirits, ancestors, or signs.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
1%
8/12
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the world speaking through spirits, ancestors, or signs.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
1%
8/12
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
1%
8/12
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
1%
8/12
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
1%
8/12
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
1%
8/12
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
8/12
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
1%
8/12
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
1%
8/12
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
8/12
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
8/12
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
8/12
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
8/12
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
1%
8/12
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
1%
8/12
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
1%
8/12
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
1%
8/12
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
8/12
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
1%
8/12
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
1%
8/12
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
8/12
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
8/12
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
8/12
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
8/12
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
1%
8/12
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
1%
8/12
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
1%
8/12
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
1%
8/12
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
8/12
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
1%
8/12
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
1%
8/12
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
8/12
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
8/12
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
8/12
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
6/9
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
→
When does a person begin?
The question presupposes a fact of the matter that isn’t there.
1%
6/9
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
→
What is marriage?
“Marriage” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
1%
6/9
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
→
What is money?
“Money” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
1%
6/9
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
→
What is a nation?
“Nation” names a family of practices imaginatively held together.
1%
6/9
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
→
What makes someone male or female?
“Male” and “female” are family-resemblance terms — no single essence.
1%
6/9
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical.
1%
6/9
Is the physical world fully real?
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
→
When does a person begin?
The question presupposes a fact of the matter that isn’t there.
1%
6/9
Is the physical world fully real?
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
→
What is marriage?
“Marriage” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
1%
6/9
Is the physical world fully real?
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
→
What is money?
“Money” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
1%
6/9
Is the physical world fully real?
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
→
What is a nation?
“Nation” names a family of practices imaginatively held together.
1%
6/9
Is the physical world fully real?
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
→
What makes someone male or female?
“Male” and “female” are family-resemblance terms — no single essence.
1%
6/9
Is the physical world fully real?
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical.
1%
6/9
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
→
When does a person begin?
The question presupposes a fact of the matter that isn’t there.
1%
6/9
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
→
What is marriage?
“Marriage” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
1%
6/9
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
→
What is money?
“Money” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
1%
6/9
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
→
What is a nation?
“Nation” names a family of practices imaginatively held together.
1%
6/9
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
→
What makes someone male or female?
“Male” and “female” are family-resemblance terms — no single essence.
1%
6/9
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical.
1%
6/9
Does history have a direction or meaning?
The truth was once known and has been lost; the task is recovery.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
6/9
Does history have a direction or meaning?
The truth was once known and has been lost; the task is recovery.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
6/9
Does history have a direction or meaning?
The truth was once known and has been lost; the task is recovery.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
6/9
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Personal decision or conversion experience is the authority.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through received divine self-disclosure.
1%
6/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Each soul stands before God alone.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
1%
6/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Each soul stands before God alone.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
1%
6/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Each soul stands before God alone.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
1%
6/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the collective historical work of the oppressed.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
6/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the collective historical work of the oppressed.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
6/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the collective historical work of the oppressed.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
6/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the collective historical work of the oppressed.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
6/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the collective historical work of the oppressed.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions.
1%
89/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
89/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
89/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
89/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
89/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
89/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
89/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
89/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
89/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
65/98
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
65/98
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
65/98
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
65/98
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
65/98
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
65/98
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
65/98
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
65/98
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
65/98
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
65/98
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
65/98
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
65/98
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
53/80
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
53/80
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
53/80
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
49/74
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
72/109
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
72/109
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
72/109
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
72/109
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
72/109
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
72/109
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
72/109
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
72/109
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
72/109
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
72/109
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
72/109
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
72/109
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
72/109
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
72/109
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
72/109
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
72/109
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
72/109
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
72/109
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
33/50
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
33/50
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
33/50
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
58/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
21/32
When does a person begin?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
21/32
When does a person begin?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
21/32
When does a person begin?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
21/32
When does a person begin?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
21/32
1%
21/32
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
21/32
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
21/32
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
21/32
1%
21/32
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
21/32
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
21/32
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
21/32
What is a nation?
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
21/32
What is a nation?
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
21/32
What is a nation?
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
21/32
What is a nation?
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
21/32
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
21/32
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
21/32
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
21/32
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
21/32
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
21/32
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
21/32
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
21/32
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
19/29
What makes someone the same person over time?
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
19/29
What makes someone the same person over time?
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
19/29
What makes someone the same person over time?
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
19/29
What makes someone the same person over time?
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
19/29
What makes someone the same person over time?
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
19/29
What makes someone the same person over time?
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
19/29
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
19/29
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
19/29
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
19/29
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
19/29
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
19/29
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
19/29
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
19/29
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
19/29
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
19/29
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
19/29
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
19/29
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
19/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
19/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
19/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
19/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
1%
19/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
19/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
19/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
19/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
34/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
1%
34/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
1%
34/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
1%
34/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
34/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
1%
34/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
1%
34/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
34/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
34/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
34/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
34/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
34/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
1%
34/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
1%
34/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
1%
34/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
34/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
1%
34/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
1%
34/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
34/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
34/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
34/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
34/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
34/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
1%
34/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
1%
34/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
1%
34/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
34/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
1%
34/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
1%
34/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
34/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
34/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
34/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
34/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
17/26
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
17/26
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
17/26
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
66/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
66/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
66/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
49/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
49/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
49/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
49/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
49/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
49/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
62/95
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
62/95
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
62/95
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
62/95
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
62/95
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
62/95
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
62/95
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
62/95
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
62/95
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
62/95
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
62/95
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
62/95
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
62/95
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
62/95
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
62/95
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
62/95
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
62/95
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
62/95
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
15/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
15/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
15/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
15/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
15/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
15/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
15/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
15/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
15/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
15/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
15/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
15/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
15/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
15/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
15/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
15/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
15/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
15/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
15/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
15/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
58/89
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
58/89
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
58/89
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
52/80
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
13/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
13/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
13/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
13/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
13/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
13/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
13/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
13/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
13/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
13/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
13/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
13/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
13/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
13/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
13/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
13/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
13/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
13/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
13/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
13/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
13/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
13/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
13/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
13/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
13/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
13/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
13/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
13/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
13/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
13/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
87/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
87/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
87/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
87/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
87/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
87/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
87/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
87/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
87/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
37/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
37/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
37/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
37/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
37/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
37/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
37/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
37/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
37/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
48/74
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
48/74
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
48/74
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
48/74
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
57/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
1%
57/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
1%
57/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
1%
11/17
What is our place in nature?
Humans and nature share an underlying unity — the separation was the mistake.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/17
Should we colonize space?
From the standpoint of the One, expansion across substrate is just movement within the same.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/17
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
All forms participate in the same underlying reality; modification doesn't cross categories.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/17
What makes someone the same person over time?
All apparent selves are aspects of one — particular identity is conventional.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/17
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The apparent change is conventional; the deeper reality is unchanged.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/17
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The distinction between scanner-you and destination-you is conventional all the way down.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/17
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
11/17
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
11/17
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
11/17
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
11/17
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
11/17
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
11/17
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
11/17
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
11/17
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
11/17
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
11/17
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
11/17
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
11/17
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
11/17
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
11/17
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
11/17
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
11/17
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
11/17
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
11/17
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
11/17
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
11/17
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
11/17
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
There are no truly separate minds; prayer is one part of one talking to another.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/17
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the One showing through the appearance of plurality.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/17
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Harm anywhere is harm to the One; the boundary that would have insulated you was never real.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/17
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
From the standpoint of the One, the categories of permanence and loss are conventional.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/17
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
From the One's vantage, civilizational categories are themselves conventional.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/17
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
From the One's vantage, the second law is itself a feature of the conventional, not the ultimate.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/17
Are the dead morally present to the living?
From the standpoint of the One, the distinction between living and dead is conventional.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/17
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
Distinction of the One and observed time is itself conventional; the question dissolves.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/17
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
The 'timeless' is the standpoint of the One that was always present; meditation removes obstacles to seeing it.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/17
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer to a separate God presupposes a separation the non-dual view denies; the practice is remembrance and attunement.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/17
Could causation work backwards?
From the One's vantage, causation itself is a conventional category.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/17
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
From the One's vantage, memory and anticipation are themselves conventional.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/17
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
From the One's vantage, the arrow of time itself is a conventional feature.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/17
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
What counts as truth is constituted by language, practice, history, power.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
1%
11/17
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
What counts as truth is constituted by language, practice, history, power.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
1%
11/17
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
What counts as truth is constituted by language, practice, history, power.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
1%
11/17
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
What counts as truth is constituted by language, practice, history, power.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
1%
42/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
42/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
42/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
42/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
42/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
42/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
42/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
42/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
42/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
42/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
42/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
42/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
42/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
42/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
42/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
42/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
42/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
42/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
42/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
42/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
42/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
89/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
89/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
89/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
89/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
89/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
89/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
89/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
89/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
89/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
18/28
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the practice, not the practitioner.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
18/28
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
'Revelation' is a category communities construct for what counts as authoritative.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
18/28
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
Whether an LLM 'knows' is the constructive question the practice has to answer.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
18/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
1%
18/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
1%
18/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
1%
18/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
9/14
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
The question presupposes a kind of mind that never existed in the first place.
→
What is our place in nature?
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world.
1%
9/14
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
The question presupposes a kind of mind that never existed in the first place.
→
Should we colonize space?
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it.
1%
9/14
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
The question presupposes a kind of mind that never existed in the first place.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction.
1%
9/14
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
The question presupposes a kind of mind that never existed in the first place.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
9/14
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
The question presupposes a kind of mind that never existed in the first place.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
9/14
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
The question presupposes a kind of mind that never existed in the first place.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
9/14
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
The question presupposes a kind of mind that never existed in the first place.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
70/109
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
70/109
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
70/109
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
70/109
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
70/109
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
70/109
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
70/109
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
70/109
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
70/109
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
70/109
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
70/109
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
70/109
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
70/109
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
70/109
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
70/109
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
70/109
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
70/109
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
70/109
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
61/95
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
61/95
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
61/95
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
50/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
1%
50/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
50/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
50/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
50/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
50/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
1%
50/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
1%
50/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
1%
50/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
50/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
50/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
50/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
50/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
1%
50/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
1%
50/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
1%
50/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
50/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
50/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
50/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
50/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
1%
50/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
1%
50/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
1%
50/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
50/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
50/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
50/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
50/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
1%
50/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
1%
57/89
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
1%
57/89
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
1%
57/89
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
1%
48/75
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
48/75
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
48/75
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
48/75
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
48/75
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
48/75
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
48/75
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
48/75
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
48/75
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
32/50
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
1%
32/50
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
1%
32/50
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
1%
16/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
1%
16/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
1%
16/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
1%
16/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
16/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
16/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
16/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
16/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
16/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
16/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
16/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
16/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
16/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
16/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
16/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
16/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
1%
16/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
1%
16/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
1%
16/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
16/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
16/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
16/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
16/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
16/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
16/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
16/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
16/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
16/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
16/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
16/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
16/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
1%
16/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
1%
16/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
1%
16/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
16/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
16/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
16/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
16/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
16/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
16/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
16/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
16/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
16/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
16/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
16/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
39/61
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
39/61
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
39/61
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
46/72
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
46/72
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
46/72
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
46/72
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
46/72
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
46/72
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
46/72
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
46/72
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
46/72
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
46/72
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
46/72
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
46/72
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
30/47
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
30/47
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
30/47
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
37/58
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
1%
51/80
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
51/80
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
51/80
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
56/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
1%
56/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
1%
56/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
1%
56/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
1%
56/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
1%
56/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
1%
42/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
42/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
42/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
42/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
1%
42/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
1%
42/66
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
1%
42/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
42/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
42/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
42/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
1%
42/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
1%
42/66
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
1%
42/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
42/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
42/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
42/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
1%
42/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
1%
42/66
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
1%
21/33
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
21/33
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
21/33
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
21/33
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
21/33
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
21/33
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
21/33
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
21/33
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
21/33
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
21/33
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
21/33
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
21/33
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
21/33
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but always known from a perspective.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
21/33
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise only insofar as it coheres with first-person experience.
1%
21/33
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
What gets called 'revelation' is real direct experience — not a text.
1%
21/33
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no first-person experience, so no knowing in the relevant sense.
1%
14/22
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
14/22
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
14/22
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
14/22
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
14/22
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
14/22
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
14/22
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
14/22
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
14/22
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
14/22
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
14/22
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
14/22
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
14/22
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
14/22
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
7/11
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What appears irreversible is reversible by the right action.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
7/11
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What appears irreversible is reversible by the right action.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
7/11
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What appears irreversible is reversible by the right action.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
7/11
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What appears irreversible is reversible by the right action.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
7/11
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What appears irreversible is reversible by the right action.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
7/11
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What appears irreversible is reversible by the right action.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
7/11
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What appears irreversible is reversible by the right action.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
1%
7/11
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What appears irreversible is reversible by the right action.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
7/11
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What appears irreversible is reversible by the right action.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
7/11
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What appears irreversible is reversible by the right action.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
7/11
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What appears irreversible is reversible by the right action.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
7/11
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What appears irreversible is reversible by the right action.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
7/11
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What appears irreversible is reversible by the right action.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
7/11
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What appears irreversible is reversible by the right action.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
7/11
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization is the kind of order that can in principle be restored.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
7/11
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization is the kind of order that can in principle be restored.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
7/11
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization is the kind of order that can in principle be restored.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
7/11
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization is the kind of order that can in principle be restored.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
7/11
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization is the kind of order that can in principle be restored.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
7/11
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization is the kind of order that can in principle be restored.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
7/11
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization is the kind of order that can in principle be restored.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
1%
7/11
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization is the kind of order that can in principle be restored.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
7/11
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization is the kind of order that can in principle be restored.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
7/11
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization is the kind of order that can in principle be restored.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
7/11
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization is the kind of order that can in principle be restored.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
7/11
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization is the kind of order that can in principle be restored.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
7/11
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization is the kind of order that can in principle be restored.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
7/11
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization is the kind of order that can in principle be restored.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
7/11
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Apparent entropy is reversible in principle; the moral category is restoration.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
7/11
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Apparent entropy is reversible in principle; the moral category is restoration.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
7/11
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Apparent entropy is reversible in principle; the moral category is restoration.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
7/11
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Apparent entropy is reversible in principle; the moral category is restoration.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
7/11
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Apparent entropy is reversible in principle; the moral category is restoration.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
7/11
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Apparent entropy is reversible in principle; the moral category is restoration.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
7/11
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Apparent entropy is reversible in principle; the moral category is restoration.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
1%
7/11
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Apparent entropy is reversible in principle; the moral category is restoration.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
7/11
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Apparent entropy is reversible in principle; the moral category is restoration.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
7/11
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Apparent entropy is reversible in principle; the moral category is restoration.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
7/11
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Apparent entropy is reversible in principle; the moral category is restoration.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
7/11
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Apparent entropy is reversible in principle; the moral category is restoration.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
7/11
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Apparent entropy is reversible in principle; the moral category is restoration.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
7/11
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Apparent entropy is reversible in principle; the moral category is restoration.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
33/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
33/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
33/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
33/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
1%
33/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
1%
33/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
1%
33/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
33/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
33/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
33/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
1%
33/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
1%
33/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
1%
33/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
33/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
33/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
33/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
1%
33/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
1%
33/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
1%
64/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
64/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
64/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
19/30
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
19/30
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
19/30
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
19/30
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
19/30
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
19/30
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
19/30
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
19/30
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
19/30
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
19/30
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
19/30
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
19/30
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
19/30
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
19/30
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
19/30
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
19/30
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
19/30
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
19/30
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
19/30
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
19/30
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
19/30
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
19/30
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
19/30
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
19/30
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
19/30
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
19/30
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
19/30
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
19/30
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
19/30
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
19/30
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
19/30
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
19/30
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
19/30
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
19/30
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
19/30
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
19/30
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
19/30
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
19/30
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
19/30
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
19/30
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
12/19
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
Yes — mind is a pattern, not a substrate.
→
What is our place in nature?
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world.
1%
12/19
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
Yes — mind is a pattern, not a substrate.
→
Should we colonize space?
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it.
1%
12/19
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
Yes — mind is a pattern, not a substrate.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction.
1%
65/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
65/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
65/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
65/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
65/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
65/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
65/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
65/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
65/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
65/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
65/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
65/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
65/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
65/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
65/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
65/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
65/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
65/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
65/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
65/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
65/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
65/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
65/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
65/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
17/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
17/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
17/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
17/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
17/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
17/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
17/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
17/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
17/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
17/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
17/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
17/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
56/89
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
1%
49/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
1%
49/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
1%
49/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
49/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
49/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
49/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
1%
49/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
1%
49/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
49/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
49/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
49/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
1%
49/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
1%
49/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
49/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
49/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
49/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
1%
49/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
1%
49/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
49/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
49/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
37/59
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
1%
37/59
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
1%
37/59
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
1%
55/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
1%
55/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
1%
55/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
55/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
55/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
55/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
55/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
55/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
55/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
50/80
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
50/80
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
50/80
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
50/80
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
50/80
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
50/80
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
50/80
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
50/80
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
40/64
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
40/64
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
40/64
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
40/64
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
40/64
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
40/64
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
20/32
When does a person begin?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
20/32
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
20/32
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
20/32
What is a nation?
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
20/32
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
20/32
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
15/24
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through careful description of lived experience.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
15/24
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through careful description of lived experience.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
15/24
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through careful description of lived experience.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
10/16
What happens to "you" when you die?
Individuality dissolves into the One.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
10/16
What happens to "you" when you die?
Individuality dissolves into the One.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
10/16
What happens to "you" when you die?
Individuality dissolves into the One.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/16
What happens to "you" when you die?
Individuality dissolves into the One.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
10/16
When does a person begin?
The question presupposes a fact of the matter that isn’t there.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
The question presupposes a "you" that never was.
1%
10/16
What is marriage?
“Marriage” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
The question presupposes a "you" that never was.
1%
10/16
What is money?
“Money” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
The question presupposes a "you" that never was.
1%
10/16
What is a nation?
“Nation” names a family of practices imaginatively held together.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
The question presupposes a "you" that never was.
1%
10/16
What makes someone male or female?
“Male” and “female” are family-resemblance terms — no single essence.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
The question presupposes a "you" that never was.
1%
10/16
Should we edit the human germline?
'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
The question presupposes a "you" that never was.
1%
63/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
63/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
63/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
86/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
86/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
86/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
86/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
86/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
86/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
86/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
86/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
86/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
86/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
86/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
86/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
86/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
86/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
86/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
86/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
86/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
86/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
38/61
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
38/61
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
38/61
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
59/95
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
59/95
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
59/95
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
18/29
What makes someone the same person over time?
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
18/29
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
18/29
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
18/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
1%
18/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
1%
83/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
83/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
83/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
83/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
83/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
83/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
83/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
83/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
83/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
83/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
83/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
83/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
83/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
83/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
83/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
83/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
83/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
83/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
83/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
83/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
83/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
83/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
83/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
83/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
83/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
83/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
83/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
13/21
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
13/21
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
13/21
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
13/21
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
13/21
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
13/21
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
13/21
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
13/21
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
13/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
1%
13/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
13/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
13/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
13/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
13/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
13/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
58/94
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
58/94
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
58/94
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
58/94
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
58/94
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
58/94
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
58/94
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
58/94
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
58/94
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
29/47
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is the gradual unfolding of improvement or liberation.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
29/47
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is the gradual unfolding of improvement or liberation.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
29/47
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is the gradual unfolding of improvement or liberation.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
48/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
1%
48/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
1%
48/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
1%
48/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
1%
40/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
40/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
40/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
40/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
40/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
40/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
40/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
40/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
40/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
32/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
32/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
32/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
32/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
32/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
32/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
32/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
32/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
32/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
16/26
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
16/26
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
1%
16/26
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
1%
16/26
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
16/26
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
1%
16/26
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
1%
16/26
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
16/26
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
1%
16/26
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
1%
16/26
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
16/26
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
1%
16/26
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
1%
16/26
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
1%
16/26
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
16/26
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
16/26
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
16/26
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
16/26
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
16/26
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
16/26
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
67/109
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
67/109
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
67/109
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
67/109
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
67/109
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
67/109
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
43/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
43/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
43/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
54/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
54/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
54/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
54/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
1%
54/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
1%
54/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
1%
54/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
54/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
54/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
54/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
54/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
54/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
54/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
54/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
54/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
54/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
1%
54/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
1%
54/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
1%
54/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
54/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
54/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
54/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
54/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
54/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
54/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
54/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
54/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
54/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
1%
54/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
1%
54/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
1%
54/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
54/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
54/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
54/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
54/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
54/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
54/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
1%
54/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
54/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
54/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
46/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
46/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
46/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
46/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
1%
46/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
1%
46/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
1%
46/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
1%
46/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
1%
46/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
1%
57/93
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
1%
57/93
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
1%
57/93
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
1%
57/93
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
1%
57/93
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
1%
57/93
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
1%
57/93
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
1%
57/93
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
1%
57/93
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
1%
19/31
What is our place in nature?
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
19/31
What is our place in nature?
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
19/31
What is our place in nature?
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
19/31
What is our place in nature?
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
19/31
What is our place in nature?
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
19/31
Should we colonize space?
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
19/31
Should we colonize space?
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
19/31
Should we colonize space?
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
19/31
Should we colonize space?
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
19/31
Should we colonize space?
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
19/31
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
19/31
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
19/31
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
19/31
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
19/31
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
49/80
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
49/80
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
49/80
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
49/80
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
44/72
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
44/72
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
44/72
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
44/72
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
44/72
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
44/72
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
44/72
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
44/72
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
44/72
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
11/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
11/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
11/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
11/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
11/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
11/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
11/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
11/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
11/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
11/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
1%
11/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
1%
11/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
1%
11/18
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information persists or doesn't depending on whether the holder is sustained.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
11/18
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information persists or doesn't depending on whether the holder is sustained.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
11/18
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information persists or doesn't depending on whether the holder is sustained.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
11/18
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information persists or doesn't depending on whether the holder is sustained.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/18
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information persists or doesn't depending on whether the holder is sustained.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
1%
11/18
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information persists where it is held; deletion releases what isn't held elsewhere.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
11/18
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information persists where it is held; deletion releases what isn't held elsewhere.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
11/18
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information persists where it is held; deletion releases what isn't held elsewhere.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
11/18
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information persists where it is held; deletion releases what isn't held elsewhere.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/18
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information persists where it is held; deletion releases what isn't held elsewhere.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
1%
11/18
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
What is held by God or sustaining practice can be restored; what isn't can't.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
11/18
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
What is held by God or sustaining practice can be restored; what isn't can't.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
11/18
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
What is held by God or sustaining practice can be restored; what isn't can't.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
11/18
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
What is held by God or sustaining practice can be restored; what isn't can't.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/18
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
What is held by God or sustaining practice can be restored; what isn't can't.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
1%
11/18
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists where sustained and releases where conditionally absolved; forgiveness is real ontological work.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
11/18
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists where sustained and releases where conditionally absolved; forgiveness is real ontological work.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
11/18
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists where sustained and releases where conditionally absolved; forgiveness is real ontological work.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
11/18
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists where sustained and releases where conditionally absolved; forgiveness is real ontological work.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
11/18
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists where sustained and releases where conditionally absolved; forgiveness is real ontological work.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
1%
39/64
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
39/64
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
14/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
14/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
14/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
14/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
14/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
14/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
17/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
1%
17/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
1%
17/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
1%
37/61
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
37/61
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
20/33
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
20/33
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
20/33
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
20/33
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
1%
20/33
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
1%
81/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
81/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
81/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
81/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
81/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
81/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
35/58
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
1%
35/58
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
1%
35/58
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
1%
53/88
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
1%
53/88
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
1%
53/88
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
1%
53/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
53/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
53/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
53/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
1%
56/93
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
1%
56/93
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
1%
56/93
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
1%
59/98
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
1%
59/98
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
1%
59/98
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
1%
59/98
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
1%
59/98
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
1%
59/98
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
1%
48/80
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
48/80
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
48/80
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
45/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
1%
45/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
1%
45/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
1%
42/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
1%
42/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
1%
42/70
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
1%
21/35
How much weight do future people deserve?
Past, present, and future are bound in cycles — duties span generations as a matter of course.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
21/35
How much weight do future people deserve?
Past, present, and future are bound in cycles — duties span generations as a matter of course.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
21/35
How much weight do future people deserve?
Past, present, and future are bound in cycles — duties span generations as a matter of course.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
21/35
How much weight do future people deserve?
Past, present, and future are bound in cycles — duties span generations as a matter of course.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
21/35
Is regret rational?
The past is part of a cycle one keeps returning to; regret is one of the gates of the cycle.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
21/35
Is regret rational?
The past is part of a cycle one keeps returning to; regret is one of the gates of the cycle.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
21/35
Is regret rational?
The past is part of a cycle one keeps returning to; regret is one of the gates of the cycle.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
21/35
Is regret rational?
The past is part of a cycle one keeps returning to; regret is one of the gates of the cycle.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
21/35
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past beings are part of the cycle; we owe them what we owe ancestors.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
21/35
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past beings are part of the cycle; we owe them what we owe ancestors.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
21/35
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past beings are part of the cycle; we owe them what we owe ancestors.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
21/35
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past beings are part of the cycle; we owe them what we owe ancestors.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
21/35
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise only insofar as it coheres with first-person experience.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
1%
21/35
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
What gets called 'revelation' is real direct experience — not a text.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
1%
21/35
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no first-person experience, so no knowing in the relevant sense.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
1%
21/35
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
21/35
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
21/35
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
21/35
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
21/35
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
21/35
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
21/35
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
21/35
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
21/35
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Local entropy increase is part of a cycle; the moral category is participation in the cycle.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
21/35
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Local entropy increase is part of a cycle; the moral category is participation in the cycle.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
21/35
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Local entropy increase is part of a cycle; the moral category is participation in the cycle.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
21/35
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Local entropy increase is part of a cycle; the moral category is participation in the cycle.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
21/35
Could causation work backwards?
Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
21/35
Could causation work backwards?
Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
21/35
Could causation work backwards?
Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
21/35
Could causation work backwards?
Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
21/35
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory and anticipation are phases of a cycle that visits both directions.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
21/35
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory and anticipation are phases of a cycle that visits both directions.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
21/35
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory and anticipation are phases of a cycle that visits both directions.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
21/35
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory and anticipation are phases of a cycle that visits both directions.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
21/35
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
Within a cycle there is a direction; across the cycle there isn't.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
21/35
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
Within a cycle there is a direction; across the cycle there isn't.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
21/35
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
Within a cycle there is a direction; across the cycle there isn't.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
21/35
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
Within a cycle there is a direction; across the cycle there isn't.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
21/35
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
1%
21/35
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
1%
21/35
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
1%
18/30
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The community of persons is the moral primary.
1%
18/30
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The community of persons is the moral primary.
1%
18/30
What is money?
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The community of persons is the moral primary.
1%
18/30
What is a nation?
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The community of persons is the moral primary.
1%
18/30
What makes someone male or female?
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The community of persons is the moral primary.
1%
18/30
Should we edit the human germline?
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The community of persons is the moral primary.
1%
18/30
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The community of persons is the moral primary.
1%
18/30
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The community of persons is the moral primary.
1%
18/30
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The community of persons is the moral primary.
1%
18/30
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The community of persons is the moral primary.
1%
18/30
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the realization of cosmic or species self.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
18/30
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the realization of cosmic or species self.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
18/30
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the realization of cosmic or species self.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
18/30
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the realization of cosmic or species self.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
18/30
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the realization of cosmic or species self.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
18/30
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the realization of cosmic or species self.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
15/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
15/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
15/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
15/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
15/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
15/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
15/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
15/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
15/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
15/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
15/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
15/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
15/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
15/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
15/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
15/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
15/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
15/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
15/25
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through received divine self-disclosure.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
1%
15/25
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through received divine self-disclosure.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
1%
15/25
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through received divine self-disclosure.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
1%
12/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
12/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
12/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
12/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
12/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
12/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
12/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
12/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
12/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
12/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
12/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
12/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
12/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
12/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
12/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
12/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
12/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
12/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
12/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
12/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
12/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
12/20
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but accessible only from within a tradition.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
12/20
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but accessible only from within a tradition.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
12/20
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but accessible only from within a tradition.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
12/20
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but accessible only from within a tradition.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The community of persons is the moral primary.
1%
12/20
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but accessible only from within a tradition.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
1%
9/15
When does a person begin?
From the standpoint of the One, the question doesn’t apply in the form it is asked.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
9/15
What is marriage?
All union is participation in the One — particular forms are conventional.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
9/15
What is money?
Money's apparent diversity is convention over a single underlying value.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
9/15
What is a nation?
Nations are conventional partitions of a single humanity.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
9/15
What makes someone male or female?
The distinction is conventional within a deeper non-dual reality.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
9/15
Should we edit the human germline?
The distinction between edited and unedited is conventional within a deeper non-dual reality.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
9/15
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
All minds are aspects of one — an AI participates in it as anything else does.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
9/15
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
All minds are aspects of one; animals participate as much as anything else.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
9/15
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Any experience that arises participates in the One.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
9/15
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through practical engagement; what works counts as known.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The community of persons is the moral primary.
1%
6/10
What happens to "you" when you die?
The question presupposes a "you" that never was.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
6/10
What happens to "you" when you die?
The question presupposes a "you" that never was.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
6/10
What happens to "you" when you die?
The question presupposes a "you" that never was.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
6/10
What happens to "you" when you die?
The question presupposes a "you" that never was.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
6/10
What happens to "you" when you die?
The question presupposes a "you" that never was.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
6/10
What happens to "you" when you die?
The question presupposes a "you" that never was.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
6/10
What happens to "you" when you die?
The question presupposes a "you" that never was.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
6/10
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The class or historical movement is the moral primary.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the practice, not the practitioner.
1%
6/10
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The class or historical movement is the moral primary.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
'Revelation' is a category communities construct for what counts as authoritative.
1%
6/10
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The class or historical movement is the moral primary.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
Whether an LLM 'knows' is the constructive question the practice has to answer.
1%
6/10
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The class or historical movement is the moral primary.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
6/10
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The class or historical movement is the moral primary.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
6/10
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The class or historical movement is the moral primary.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
6/10
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The class or historical movement is the moral primary.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
6/10
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The class or historical movement is the moral primary.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
3/5
How much weight do future people deserve?
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
1%
3/5
How much weight do future people deserve?
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
3/5
How much weight do future people deserve?
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
3/5
How much weight do future people deserve?
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
3/5
How much weight do future people deserve?
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
1%
3/5
How much weight do future people deserve?
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
1%
3/5
How much weight do future people deserve?
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
1%
3/5
How much weight do future people deserve?
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
3/5
How much weight do future people deserve?
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
1%
3/5
How much weight do future people deserve?
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
3/5
How much weight do future people deserve?
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
1%
3/5
How much weight do future people deserve?
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
1%
3/5
How much weight do future people deserve?
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
3/5
How much weight do future people deserve?
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
3/5
How much weight do future people deserve?
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
3/5
How much weight do future people deserve?
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
3/5
How much weight do future people deserve?
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
1%
3/5
Is regret rational?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
1%
3/5
Is regret rational?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
3/5
Is regret rational?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
3/5
Is regret rational?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
3/5
Is regret rational?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
1%
3/5
Is regret rational?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
1%
3/5
Is regret rational?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
1%
3/5
Is regret rational?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
3/5
Is regret rational?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
1%
3/5
Is regret rational?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
3/5
Is regret rational?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
1%
3/5
Is regret rational?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
1%
3/5
Is regret rational?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
3/5
Is regret rational?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
3/5
Is regret rational?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
3/5
Is regret rational?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
3/5
Is regret rational?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
1%
3/5
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
1%
3/5
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
3/5
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
3/5
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
3/5
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
1%
3/5
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
1%
3/5
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
1%
3/5
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
3/5
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
1%
3/5
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
3/5
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
1%
3/5
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
1%
3/5
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
3/5
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
3/5
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
3/5
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
3/5
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
1%
3/5
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
1%
3/5
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
3/5
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
3/5
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
3/5
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
1%
3/5
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
1%
3/5
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
1%
3/5
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
3/5
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
1%
3/5
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
3/5
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
1%
3/5
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
1%
3/5
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
3/5
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
3/5
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
3/5
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
3/5
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
1%
3/5
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
1%
3/5
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
3/5
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
3/5
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
3/5
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
1%
3/5
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
1%
3/5
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
1%
3/5
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
3/5
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
1%
3/5
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
3/5
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
1%
3/5
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
1%
3/5
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
3/5
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
3/5
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
3/5
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
3/5
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
1%
3/5
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
1%
3/5
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
3/5
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
3/5
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
3/5
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
1%
3/5
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
1%
3/5
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
1%
3/5
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
3/5
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
1%
3/5
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
3/5
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
1%
3/5
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
1%
3/5
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
3/5
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
3/5
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
3/5
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
3/5
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
1%
3/5
Could causation work backwards?
Past, present, and future are conventional designations; the question doesn't quite arise.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
3/5
Could causation work backwards?
Past, present, and future are conventional designations; the question doesn't quite arise.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
3/5
Could causation work backwards?
Past, present, and future are conventional designations; the question doesn't quite arise.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
3/5
Could causation work backwards?
Past, present, and future are conventional designations; the question doesn't quite arise.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
1%
3/5
Could causation work backwards?
Past, present, and future are conventional designations; the question doesn't quite arise.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
1%
3/5
Could causation work backwards?
Past, present, and future are conventional designations; the question doesn't quite arise.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed.
1%
3/5
Could causation work backwards?
Past, present, and future are conventional designations; the question doesn't quite arise.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
1%
3/5
Could causation work backwards?
Past, present, and future are conventional designations; the question doesn't quite arise.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
1%
3/5
Could causation work backwards?
Past, present, and future are conventional designations; the question doesn't quite arise.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
1%
3/5
Could causation work backwards?
Past, present, and future are conventional designations; the question doesn't quite arise.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
1%
3/5
Could causation work backwards?
Past, present, and future are conventional designations; the question doesn't quite arise.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
1%
3/5
Could causation work backwards?
Past, present, and future are conventional designations; the question doesn't quite arise.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
1%
3/5
Could causation work backwards?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
1%
3/5
Could causation work backwards?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
3/5
Could causation work backwards?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
3/5
Could causation work backwards?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
3/5
Could causation work backwards?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
1%
3/5
Could causation work backwards?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
1%
3/5
Could causation work backwards?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
1%
3/5
Could causation work backwards?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
3/5
Could causation work backwards?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
1%
3/5
Could causation work backwards?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
3/5
Could causation work backwards?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
1%
3/5
Could causation work backwards?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
1%
3/5
Could causation work backwards?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
3/5
Could causation work backwards?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
3/5
Could causation work backwards?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
3/5
Could causation work backwards?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
3/5
Could causation work backwards?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
1%
3/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The categories of memory and anticipation are conventional; their asymmetry is what we built.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
3/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The categories of memory and anticipation are conventional; their asymmetry is what we built.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
3/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The categories of memory and anticipation are conventional; their asymmetry is what we built.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
3/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The categories of memory and anticipation are conventional; their asymmetry is what we built.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
1%
3/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The categories of memory and anticipation are conventional; their asymmetry is what we built.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
1%
3/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The categories of memory and anticipation are conventional; their asymmetry is what we built.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed.
1%
3/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The categories of memory and anticipation are conventional; their asymmetry is what we built.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
1%
3/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The categories of memory and anticipation are conventional; their asymmetry is what we built.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
1%
3/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The categories of memory and anticipation are conventional; their asymmetry is what we built.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
1%
3/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The categories of memory and anticipation are conventional; their asymmetry is what we built.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
1%
3/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The categories of memory and anticipation are conventional; their asymmetry is what we built.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
1%
3/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The categories of memory and anticipation are conventional; their asymmetry is what we built.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
1%
3/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
1%
3/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
3/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
3/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
3/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
1%
3/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
1%
3/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
1%
3/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
3/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
1%
3/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
3/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
1%
3/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
1%
3/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
3/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
3/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
3/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
3/5
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
1%
3/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
There is no fact about whether time has an arrow; the question is metaphysical posing.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
3/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
There is no fact about whether time has an arrow; the question is metaphysical posing.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
3/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
There is no fact about whether time has an arrow; the question is metaphysical posing.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
3/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
There is no fact about whether time has an arrow; the question is metaphysical posing.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
1%
3/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
There is no fact about whether time has an arrow; the question is metaphysical posing.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
1%
3/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
There is no fact about whether time has an arrow; the question is metaphysical posing.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed.
1%
3/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
There is no fact about whether time has an arrow; the question is metaphysical posing.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
1%
3/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
There is no fact about whether time has an arrow; the question is metaphysical posing.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
1%
3/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
There is no fact about whether time has an arrow; the question is metaphysical posing.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
1%
3/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
There is no fact about whether time has an arrow; the question is metaphysical posing.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
1%
3/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
There is no fact about whether time has an arrow; the question is metaphysical posing.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
1%
3/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
There is no fact about whether time has an arrow; the question is metaphysical posing.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
1%
3/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
1%
3/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
3/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
3/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
3/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
1%
3/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
1%
3/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
1%
3/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
3/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
1%
3/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
3/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
1%
3/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
1%
3/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
3/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
3/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
3/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
3/5
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
1%
79/132
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
79/132
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
79/132
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
34/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
1%
34/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
1%
34/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
1%
31/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
31/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
31/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
31/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
31/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
31/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
31/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
31/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
31/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
28/47
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
28/47
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
28/47
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
28/47
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
28/47
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
28/47
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
28/47
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
28/47
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
28/47
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
66/111
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
66/111
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
66/111
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
66/111
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
66/111
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
66/111
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
66/111
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
66/111
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
66/111
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
44/74
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
44/74
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
44/74
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
22/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
22/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
22/37
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
82/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
82/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
82/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
82/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
82/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
82/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
82/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
82/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
82/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
38/64
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
38/64
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
35/59
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
1%
35/59
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
1%
16/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
1%
16/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
1%
16/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
1%
16/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
1%
16/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
1%
16/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
1%
16/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
1%
16/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
1%
16/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
1%
16/27
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
1%
78/132
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
78/132
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
78/132
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
78/132
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
78/132
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
78/132
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
13/22
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
13/22
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
13/22
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
13/22
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
1%
36/61
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
36/61
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
46/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
46/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
46/78
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
46/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
46/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
46/78
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
46/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
46/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
46/78
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
46/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
46/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
46/78
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
79/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
79/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
79/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
79/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
79/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
79/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
79/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
79/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
79/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
79/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
79/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
79/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
79/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
79/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
79/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
79/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
79/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
79/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
10/17
What is our place in nature?
Humans and nature share an underlying unity — the separation was the mistake.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
10/17
What is our place in nature?
Humans and nature share an underlying unity — the separation was the mistake.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
10/17
What is our place in nature?
Humans and nature share an underlying unity — the separation was the mistake.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
10/17
What is our place in nature?
Humans and nature share an underlying unity — the separation was the mistake.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
10/17
What is our place in nature?
Humans and nature share an underlying unity — the separation was the mistake.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
10/17
What is our place in nature?
Humans and nature share an underlying unity — the separation was the mistake.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/17
What is our place in nature?
Humans and nature share an underlying unity — the separation was the mistake.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
10/17
What is our place in nature?
Humans and nature share an underlying unity — the separation was the mistake.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
10/17
Should we colonize space?
From the standpoint of the One, expansion across substrate is just movement within the same.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
10/17
Should we colonize space?
From the standpoint of the One, expansion across substrate is just movement within the same.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
10/17
Should we colonize space?
From the standpoint of the One, expansion across substrate is just movement within the same.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
10/17
Should we colonize space?
From the standpoint of the One, expansion across substrate is just movement within the same.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
10/17
Should we colonize space?
From the standpoint of the One, expansion across substrate is just movement within the same.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
10/17
Should we colonize space?
From the standpoint of the One, expansion across substrate is just movement within the same.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/17
Should we colonize space?
From the standpoint of the One, expansion across substrate is just movement within the same.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
10/17
Should we colonize space?
From the standpoint of the One, expansion across substrate is just movement within the same.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
10/17
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
All forms participate in the same underlying reality; modification doesn't cross categories.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
10/17
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
All forms participate in the same underlying reality; modification doesn't cross categories.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
10/17
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
All forms participate in the same underlying reality; modification doesn't cross categories.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
10/17
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
All forms participate in the same underlying reality; modification doesn't cross categories.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
10/17
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
All forms participate in the same underlying reality; modification doesn't cross categories.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
10/17
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
All forms participate in the same underlying reality; modification doesn't cross categories.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/17
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
All forms participate in the same underlying reality; modification doesn't cross categories.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
10/17
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
All forms participate in the same underlying reality; modification doesn't cross categories.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
10/17
What makes someone the same person over time?
All apparent selves are aspects of one — particular identity is conventional.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
10/17
What makes someone the same person over time?
All apparent selves are aspects of one — particular identity is conventional.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
10/17
What makes someone the same person over time?
All apparent selves are aspects of one — particular identity is conventional.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
10/17
What makes someone the same person over time?
All apparent selves are aspects of one — particular identity is conventional.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
10/17
What makes someone the same person over time?
All apparent selves are aspects of one — particular identity is conventional.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
10/17
What makes someone the same person over time?
All apparent selves are aspects of one — particular identity is conventional.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/17
What makes someone the same person over time?
All apparent selves are aspects of one — particular identity is conventional.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
10/17
What makes someone the same person over time?
All apparent selves are aspects of one — particular identity is conventional.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
10/17
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The apparent change is conventional; the deeper reality is unchanged.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
10/17
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The apparent change is conventional; the deeper reality is unchanged.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
10/17
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The apparent change is conventional; the deeper reality is unchanged.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
10/17
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The apparent change is conventional; the deeper reality is unchanged.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
10/17
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The apparent change is conventional; the deeper reality is unchanged.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
10/17
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The apparent change is conventional; the deeper reality is unchanged.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/17
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The apparent change is conventional; the deeper reality is unchanged.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
10/17
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The apparent change is conventional; the deeper reality is unchanged.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
10/17
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The distinction between scanner-you and destination-you is conventional all the way down.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
10/17
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The distinction between scanner-you and destination-you is conventional all the way down.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
10/17
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The distinction between scanner-you and destination-you is conventional all the way down.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
10/17
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The distinction between scanner-you and destination-you is conventional all the way down.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
10/17
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The distinction between scanner-you and destination-you is conventional all the way down.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
10/17
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The distinction between scanner-you and destination-you is conventional all the way down.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/17
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The distinction between scanner-you and destination-you is conventional all the way down.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
10/17
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The distinction between scanner-you and destination-you is conventional all the way down.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
10/17
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
10/17
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
10/17
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
10/17
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
10/17
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
10/17
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
10/17
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
1%
10/17
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
10/17
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
10/17
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
10/17
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
10/17
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
10/17
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
10/17
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
1%
10/17
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
10/17
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
10/17
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
10/17
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
10/17
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
10/17
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
10/17
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
1%
10/17
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
There are no truly separate minds; prayer is one part of one talking to another.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
10/17
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
There are no truly separate minds; prayer is one part of one talking to another.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
10/17
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
There are no truly separate minds; prayer is one part of one talking to another.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
10/17
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
There are no truly separate minds; prayer is one part of one talking to another.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
10/17
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
There are no truly separate minds; prayer is one part of one talking to another.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
10/17
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
There are no truly separate minds; prayer is one part of one talking to another.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/17
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
There are no truly separate minds; prayer is one part of one talking to another.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
10/17
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
There are no truly separate minds; prayer is one part of one talking to another.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
10/17
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the One showing through the appearance of plurality.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
10/17
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the One showing through the appearance of plurality.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
10/17
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the One showing through the appearance of plurality.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
10/17
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the One showing through the appearance of plurality.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
10/17
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the One showing through the appearance of plurality.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
10/17
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the One showing through the appearance of plurality.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/17
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the One showing through the appearance of plurality.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
10/17
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the One showing through the appearance of plurality.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
10/17
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Harm anywhere is harm to the One; the boundary that would have insulated you was never real.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
10/17
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Harm anywhere is harm to the One; the boundary that would have insulated you was never real.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
10/17
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Harm anywhere is harm to the One; the boundary that would have insulated you was never real.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
10/17
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Harm anywhere is harm to the One; the boundary that would have insulated you was never real.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
10/17
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Harm anywhere is harm to the One; the boundary that would have insulated you was never real.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
10/17
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Harm anywhere is harm to the One; the boundary that would have insulated you was never real.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/17
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Harm anywhere is harm to the One; the boundary that would have insulated you was never real.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
10/17
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Harm anywhere is harm to the One; the boundary that would have insulated you was never real.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
10/17
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
From the standpoint of the One, the categories of permanence and loss are conventional.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
10/17
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
From the standpoint of the One, the categories of permanence and loss are conventional.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
10/17
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
From the standpoint of the One, the categories of permanence and loss are conventional.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
10/17
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
From the standpoint of the One, the categories of permanence and loss are conventional.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
10/17
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
From the standpoint of the One, the categories of permanence and loss are conventional.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
10/17
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
From the standpoint of the One, the categories of permanence and loss are conventional.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/17
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
From the standpoint of the One, the categories of permanence and loss are conventional.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
10/17
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
From the standpoint of the One, the categories of permanence and loss are conventional.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
10/17
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
From the One's vantage, civilizational categories are themselves conventional.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
10/17
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
From the One's vantage, civilizational categories are themselves conventional.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
10/17
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
From the One's vantage, civilizational categories are themselves conventional.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
10/17
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
From the One's vantage, civilizational categories are themselves conventional.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
10/17
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
From the One's vantage, civilizational categories are themselves conventional.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
10/17
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
From the One's vantage, civilizational categories are themselves conventional.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/17
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
From the One's vantage, civilizational categories are themselves conventional.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
10/17
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
From the One's vantage, civilizational categories are themselves conventional.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
10/17
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
From the One's vantage, the second law is itself a feature of the conventional, not the ultimate.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
10/17
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
From the One's vantage, the second law is itself a feature of the conventional, not the ultimate.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
10/17
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
From the One's vantage, the second law is itself a feature of the conventional, not the ultimate.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
10/17
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
From the One's vantage, the second law is itself a feature of the conventional, not the ultimate.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
10/17
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
From the One's vantage, the second law is itself a feature of the conventional, not the ultimate.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
10/17
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
From the One's vantage, the second law is itself a feature of the conventional, not the ultimate.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/17
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
From the One's vantage, the second law is itself a feature of the conventional, not the ultimate.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
10/17
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
From the One's vantage, the second law is itself a feature of the conventional, not the ultimate.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
10/17
Are the dead morally present to the living?
From the standpoint of the One, the distinction between living and dead is conventional.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
10/17
Are the dead morally present to the living?
From the standpoint of the One, the distinction between living and dead is conventional.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
10/17
Are the dead morally present to the living?
From the standpoint of the One, the distinction between living and dead is conventional.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
10/17
Are the dead morally present to the living?
From the standpoint of the One, the distinction between living and dead is conventional.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
10/17
Are the dead morally present to the living?
From the standpoint of the One, the distinction between living and dead is conventional.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
10/17
Are the dead morally present to the living?
From the standpoint of the One, the distinction between living and dead is conventional.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/17
Are the dead morally present to the living?
From the standpoint of the One, the distinction between living and dead is conventional.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
10/17
Are the dead morally present to the living?
From the standpoint of the One, the distinction between living and dead is conventional.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
10/17
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
Distinction of the One and observed time is itself conventional; the question dissolves.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
10/17
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
Distinction of the One and observed time is itself conventional; the question dissolves.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
10/17
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
Distinction of the One and observed time is itself conventional; the question dissolves.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
10/17
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
Distinction of the One and observed time is itself conventional; the question dissolves.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
10/17
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
Distinction of the One and observed time is itself conventional; the question dissolves.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
10/17
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
Distinction of the One and observed time is itself conventional; the question dissolves.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/17
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
Distinction of the One and observed time is itself conventional; the question dissolves.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
10/17
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
Distinction of the One and observed time is itself conventional; the question dissolves.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
10/17
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
The 'timeless' is the standpoint of the One that was always present; meditation removes obstacles to seeing it.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
10/17
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
The 'timeless' is the standpoint of the One that was always present; meditation removes obstacles to seeing it.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
10/17
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
The 'timeless' is the standpoint of the One that was always present; meditation removes obstacles to seeing it.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
10/17
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
The 'timeless' is the standpoint of the One that was always present; meditation removes obstacles to seeing it.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
10/17
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
The 'timeless' is the standpoint of the One that was always present; meditation removes obstacles to seeing it.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
10/17
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
The 'timeless' is the standpoint of the One that was always present; meditation removes obstacles to seeing it.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/17
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
The 'timeless' is the standpoint of the One that was always present; meditation removes obstacles to seeing it.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
10/17
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
The 'timeless' is the standpoint of the One that was always present; meditation removes obstacles to seeing it.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
10/17
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer to a separate God presupposes a separation the non-dual view denies; the practice is remembrance and attunement.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
10/17
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer to a separate God presupposes a separation the non-dual view denies; the practice is remembrance and attunement.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
10/17
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer to a separate God presupposes a separation the non-dual view denies; the practice is remembrance and attunement.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
10/17
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer to a separate God presupposes a separation the non-dual view denies; the practice is remembrance and attunement.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
10/17
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer to a separate God presupposes a separation the non-dual view denies; the practice is remembrance and attunement.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
10/17
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer to a separate God presupposes a separation the non-dual view denies; the practice is remembrance and attunement.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/17
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer to a separate God presupposes a separation the non-dual view denies; the practice is remembrance and attunement.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
10/17
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer to a separate God presupposes a separation the non-dual view denies; the practice is remembrance and attunement.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
10/17
Could causation work backwards?
From the One's vantage, causation itself is a conventional category.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
10/17
Could causation work backwards?
From the One's vantage, causation itself is a conventional category.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
10/17
Could causation work backwards?
From the One's vantage, causation itself is a conventional category.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
10/17
Could causation work backwards?
From the One's vantage, causation itself is a conventional category.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
10/17
Could causation work backwards?
From the One's vantage, causation itself is a conventional category.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
10/17
Could causation work backwards?
From the One's vantage, causation itself is a conventional category.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/17
Could causation work backwards?
From the One's vantage, causation itself is a conventional category.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
10/17
Could causation work backwards?
From the One's vantage, causation itself is a conventional category.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
10/17
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
From the One's vantage, memory and anticipation are themselves conventional.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
10/17
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
From the One's vantage, memory and anticipation are themselves conventional.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
10/17
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
From the One's vantage, memory and anticipation are themselves conventional.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
10/17
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
From the One's vantage, memory and anticipation are themselves conventional.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
10/17
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
From the One's vantage, memory and anticipation are themselves conventional.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
10/17
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
From the One's vantage, memory and anticipation are themselves conventional.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/17
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
From the One's vantage, memory and anticipation are themselves conventional.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
10/17
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
From the One's vantage, memory and anticipation are themselves conventional.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
10/17
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
From the One's vantage, the arrow of time itself is a conventional feature.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
10/17
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
From the One's vantage, the arrow of time itself is a conventional feature.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
10/17
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
From the One's vantage, the arrow of time itself is a conventional feature.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
10/17
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
From the One's vantage, the arrow of time itself is a conventional feature.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
1%
10/17
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
From the One's vantage, the arrow of time itself is a conventional feature.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
1%
10/17
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
From the One's vantage, the arrow of time itself is a conventional feature.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
1%
10/17
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
From the One's vantage, the arrow of time itself is a conventional feature.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
10/17
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
From the One's vantage, the arrow of time itself is a conventional feature.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
57/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
57/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
57/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
57/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
57/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
57/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
64/109
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
64/109
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
64/109
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
64/109
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
64/109
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
64/109
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
64/109
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
64/109
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
64/109
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
64/109
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
64/109
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
64/109
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
44/75
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
1%
44/75
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
1%
44/75
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
1%
44/75
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
1%
44/75
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
1%
44/75
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
1%
44/75
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
1%
44/75
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
1%
44/75
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
1%
17/29
What makes someone the same person over time?
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
17/29
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
17/29
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
17/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
1%
17/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
17/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
1%
17/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
1%
17/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
17/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
17/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
38/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
38/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
38/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
38/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
38/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
38/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
38/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
38/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
38/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
59/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
1%
59/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
1%
59/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
35/60
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
1%
14/24
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
14/24
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
14/24
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
14/24
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
14/24
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
14/24
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
14/24
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
14/24
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
14/24
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
14/24
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
14/24
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The cosmos is bounded; our obligations to future generations are bounded with it.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
14/24
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The cosmos is bounded; our obligations to future generations are bounded with it.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
14/24
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The cosmos is bounded; our obligations to future generations are bounded with it.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
14/24
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The cosmos is bounded; our obligations to future generations are bounded with it.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
14/24
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The cosmos is bounded; our obligations to future generations are bounded with it.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
14/24
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through careful description of lived experience.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
14/24
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through careful description of lived experience.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
14/24
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through careful description of lived experience.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
14/24
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through careful description of lived experience.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
14/24
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through careful description of lived experience.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
14/24
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through careful description of lived experience.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
14/24
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through careful description of lived experience.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
14/24
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through careful description of lived experience.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
14/24
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through careful description of lived experience.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
7/12
Do you really choose?
Even if the universe is undetermined, you are not the chooser.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
7/12
Do you really choose?
Even if the universe is undetermined, you are not the chooser.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
7/12
Do you really choose?
Even if the universe is undetermined, you are not the chooser.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
7/12
Do you really choose?
Even if the universe is undetermined, you are not the chooser.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
7/12
Do you really choose?
Even if the universe is undetermined, you are not the chooser.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
7/12
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
Even if the universe is undetermined, the addict isn't the chooser.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
7/12
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
Even if the universe is undetermined, the addict isn't the chooser.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
7/12
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
Even if the universe is undetermined, the addict isn't the chooser.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
7/12
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
Even if the universe is undetermined, the addict isn't the chooser.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
7/12
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
Even if the universe is undetermined, the addict isn't the chooser.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
7/12
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
Neither AIs nor anyone else are the locus of free agency; the question is the wrong one.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
7/12
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
Neither AIs nor anyone else are the locus of free agency; the question is the wrong one.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
7/12
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
Neither AIs nor anyone else are the locus of free agency; the question is the wrong one.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
7/12
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
Neither AIs nor anyone else are the locus of free agency; the question is the wrong one.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
7/12
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
Neither AIs nor anyone else are the locus of free agency; the question is the wrong one.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
7/12
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches through ancestors, kami, or the spirits active in the world.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
1%
7/12
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches through ancestors, kami, or the spirits active in the world.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
1%
7/12
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches through ancestors, kami, or the spirits active in the world.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
1%
7/12
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches through ancestors, kami, or the spirits active in the world.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
7/12
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches through ancestors, kami, or the spirits active in the world.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
7/12
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches through ancestors, kami, or the spirits active in the world.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
7/12
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches through ancestors, kami, or the spirits active in the world.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
1%
7/12
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches through ancestors, kami, or the spirits active in the world.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but accessible only from within a tradition.
1%
7/12
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the world speaking through spirits, ancestors, or signs.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
1%
7/12
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the world speaking through spirits, ancestors, or signs.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
1%
7/12
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the world speaking through spirits, ancestors, or signs.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
1%
7/12
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the world speaking through spirits, ancestors, or signs.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
7/12
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the world speaking through spirits, ancestors, or signs.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
7/12
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the world speaking through spirits, ancestors, or signs.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
7/12
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the world speaking through spirits, ancestors, or signs.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
1%
7/12
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is the world speaking through spirits, ancestors, or signs.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but accessible only from within a tradition.
1%
7/12
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
7/12
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
7/12
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
7/12
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
7/12
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
7/12
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
1%
7/12
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
1%
7/12
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
1%
7/12
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
7/12
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
7/12
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
7/12
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
7/12
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
7/12
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
1%
7/12
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
1%
7/12
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
1%
7/12
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
7/12
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
7/12
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
7/12
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
7/12
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
7/12
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
1%
7/12
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
1%
7/12
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
1%
60/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
60/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
60/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
60/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
60/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
60/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
60/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
60/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
60/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
60/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
60/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
60/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
57/98
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
1%
57/98
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
1%
43/74
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
43/74
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
43/74
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
18/31
What is our place in nature?
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
18/31
What is our place in nature?
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
18/31
What is our place in nature?
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
18/31
What is our place in nature?
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
18/31
Should we colonize space?
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
18/31
Should we colonize space?
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
18/31
Should we colonize space?
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
18/31
Should we colonize space?
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
18/31
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
18/31
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
18/31
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
18/31
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
18/31
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Both time and matter are unbounded; 'running out' is misframed.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
18/31
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Both time and matter are unbounded; 'running out' is misframed.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
18/31
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Both time and matter are unbounded; 'running out' is misframed.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
18/31
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Resources are practically inexhaustible on cosmic scales; terrestrial limits are engineering.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
18/31
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Resources are practically inexhaustible on cosmic scales; terrestrial limits are engineering.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
18/31
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Resources are practically inexhaustible on cosmic scales; terrestrial limits are engineering.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
18/31
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Both time and matter are unbounded; we cannot in principle owe more than is possible.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
18/31
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Both time and matter are unbounded; we cannot in principle owe more than is possible.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
18/31
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Both time and matter are unbounded; we cannot in principle owe more than is possible.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
51/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
51/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
51/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
51/88
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
33/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
33/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
33/57
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
33/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
33/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
33/57
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
33/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
33/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
33/57
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
11/19
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
Yes — mind is a pattern, not a substrate.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
11/19
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
Yes — mind is a pattern, not a substrate.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
11/19
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
Yes — mind is a pattern, not a substrate.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
11/19
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
Yes — mind is a pattern, not a substrate.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
37/64
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
37/64
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
37/64
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
37/64
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
37/64
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
37/64
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
37/64
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
37/64
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
37/64
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
37/64
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
37/64
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
37/64
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
37/64
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
37/64
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
37/64
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
37/64
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
37/64
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
37/64
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
37/64
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
37/64
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
37/64
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
56/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
56/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
56/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
15/26
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Past, present, and future are bound in cycles — duties span generations as a matter of course.
1%
15/26
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is part of a cycle one keeps returning to; regret is one of the gates of the cycle.
1%
15/26
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past beings are part of the cycle; we owe them what we owe ancestors.
1%
15/26
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
→
What is our place in nature?
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world.
1%
15/26
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
→
Should we colonize space?
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it.
1%
15/26
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction.
1%
15/26
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form.
1%
15/26
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history.
1%
15/26
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Local entropy increase is part of a cycle; the moral category is participation in the cycle.
1%
15/26
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
15/26
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
15/26
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
15/26
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
15/26
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle.
1%
15/26
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory and anticipation are phases of a cycle that visits both directions.
1%
15/26
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
Within a cycle there is a direction; across the cycle there isn't.
1%
15/26
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
15/26
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Past, present, and future are bound in cycles — duties span generations as a matter of course.
1%
15/26
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is part of a cycle one keeps returning to; regret is one of the gates of the cycle.
1%
15/26
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past beings are part of the cycle; we owe them what we owe ancestors.
1%
15/26
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
What is our place in nature?
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world.
1%
15/26
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Should we colonize space?
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it.
1%
15/26
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction.
1%
15/26
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form.
1%
15/26
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history.
1%
15/26
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Local entropy increase is part of a cycle; the moral category is participation in the cycle.
1%
15/26
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
15/26
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
15/26
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
15/26
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
15/26
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle.
1%
15/26
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory and anticipation are phases of a cycle that visits both directions.
1%
15/26
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
Within a cycle there is a direction; across the cycle there isn't.
1%
15/26
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
15/26
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Past, present, and future are bound in cycles — duties span generations as a matter of course.
1%
15/26
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is part of a cycle one keeps returning to; regret is one of the gates of the cycle.
1%
15/26
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past beings are part of the cycle; we owe them what we owe ancestors.
1%
15/26
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
→
What is our place in nature?
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world.
1%
15/26
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
→
Should we colonize space?
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it.
1%
15/26
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction.
1%
15/26
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form.
1%
15/26
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history.
1%
15/26
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Local entropy increase is part of a cycle; the moral category is participation in the cycle.
1%
15/26
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
15/26
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
15/26
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
15/26
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
15/26
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle.
1%
15/26
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory and anticipation are phases of a cycle that visits both directions.
1%
15/26
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
Within a cycle there is a direction; across the cycle there isn't.
1%
15/26
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
15/26
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Past, present, and future are bound in cycles — duties span generations as a matter of course.
1%
15/26
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is part of a cycle one keeps returning to; regret is one of the gates of the cycle.
1%
15/26
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past beings are part of the cycle; we owe them what we owe ancestors.
1%
15/26
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
→
What is our place in nature?
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world.
1%
15/26
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
→
Should we colonize space?
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it.
1%
15/26
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction.
1%
15/26
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form.
1%
15/26
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history.
1%
15/26
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Local entropy increase is part of a cycle; the moral category is participation in the cycle.
1%
15/26
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
15/26
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
15/26
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
15/26
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
15/26
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle.
1%
15/26
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory and anticipation are phases of a cycle that visits both directions.
1%
15/26
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
Within a cycle there is a direction; across the cycle there isn't.
1%
15/26
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
15/26
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
15/26
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
15/26
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
15/26
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
15/26
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is the gradual unfolding of improvement or liberation.
1%
34/59
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
1%
34/59
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
1%
34/59
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
1%
34/59
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
1%
34/59
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
1%
34/59
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
1%
19/33
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
19/33
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but always known from a perspective.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
19/33
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
19/33
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
19/33
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
19/33
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Direct experiential union is the authority.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
46/80
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
46/80
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
46/80
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
46/80
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
77/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
77/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
77/134
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
77/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
77/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
77/134
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
77/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
77/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
77/134
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
27/47
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
→
What is our place in nature?
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world.
1%
27/47
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
→
Should we colonize space?
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it.
1%
27/47
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction.
1%
27/47
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
→
What is our place in nature?
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world.
1%
27/47
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
→
Should we colonize space?
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it.
1%
27/47
Is the physical world fully real?
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction.
1%
27/47
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
→
What is our place in nature?
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world.
1%
27/47
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
→
Should we colonize space?
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it.
1%
27/47
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction.
1%
27/47
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is the gradual unfolding of improvement or liberation.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
27/47
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is the gradual unfolding of improvement or liberation.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
27/47
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is the gradual unfolding of improvement or liberation.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
58/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
1%
35/61
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
35/61
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
35/61
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
43/75
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
1%
43/75
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
1%
43/75
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
1%
51/89
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
51/89
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
51/89
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
59/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
1%
59/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
1%
59/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
1%
59/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
1%
59/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
1%
59/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
1%
59/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
1%
59/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
1%
79/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
79/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
79/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
79/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
79/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
79/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
79/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
79/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
79/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
32/56
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The community of persons is the moral primary.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
32/56
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The community of persons is the moral primary.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
32/56
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The community of persons is the moral primary.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
32/56
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The community of persons is the moral primary.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
20/35
How much weight do future people deserve?
Past, present, and future are bound in cycles — duties span generations as a matter of course.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
20/35
How much weight do future people deserve?
Past, present, and future are bound in cycles — duties span generations as a matter of course.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
20/35
How much weight do future people deserve?
Past, present, and future are bound in cycles — duties span generations as a matter of course.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
20/35
Is regret rational?
The past is part of a cycle one keeps returning to; regret is one of the gates of the cycle.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
20/35
Is regret rational?
The past is part of a cycle one keeps returning to; regret is one of the gates of the cycle.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
20/35
Is regret rational?
The past is part of a cycle one keeps returning to; regret is one of the gates of the cycle.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
20/35
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past beings are part of the cycle; we owe them what we owe ancestors.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
20/35
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past beings are part of the cycle; we owe them what we owe ancestors.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
20/35
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past beings are part of the cycle; we owe them what we owe ancestors.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
20/35
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
20/35
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
20/35
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
20/35
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
20/35
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
20/35
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
20/35
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Local entropy increase is part of a cycle; the moral category is participation in the cycle.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
20/35
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Local entropy increase is part of a cycle; the moral category is participation in the cycle.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
20/35
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Local entropy increase is part of a cycle; the moral category is participation in the cycle.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
20/35
Could causation work backwards?
Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
20/35
Could causation work backwards?
Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
20/35
Could causation work backwards?
Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
20/35
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory and anticipation are phases of a cycle that visits both directions.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
20/35
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory and anticipation are phases of a cycle that visits both directions.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
20/35
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory and anticipation are phases of a cycle that visits both directions.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
20/35
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
Within a cycle there is a direction; across the cycle there isn't.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
20/35
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
Within a cycle there is a direction; across the cycle there isn't.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
1%
20/35
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
Within a cycle there is a direction; across the cycle there isn't.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
1%
20/35
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
20/35
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
20/35
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through controlled empirical investigation.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
16/28
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the practice, not the practitioner.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
16/28
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the practice, not the practitioner.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
16/28
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the practice, not the practitioner.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
16/28
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
'Revelation' is a category communities construct for what counts as authoritative.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
16/28
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
'Revelation' is a category communities construct for what counts as authoritative.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
16/28
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
'Revelation' is a category communities construct for what counts as authoritative.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
16/28
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
Whether an LLM 'knows' is the constructive question the practice has to answer.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
16/28
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
Whether an LLM 'knows' is the constructive question the practice has to answer.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
16/28
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
Whether an LLM 'knows' is the constructive question the practice has to answer.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
16/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
16/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
16/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
16/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
16/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
16/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
16/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
16/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
16/28
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
12/21
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
12/21
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
12/21
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
12/21
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
12/21
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
12/21
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
12/21
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
12/21
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
12/21
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
1%
12/21
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
1%
12/21
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
1%
12/21
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
12/21
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
12/21
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
12/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
12/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
12/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
12/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
12/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
1%
12/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
1%
12/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
1%
12/21
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Historical-critical method is the authority.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is the gradual unfolding of improvement or liberation.
1%
8/14
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
The question presupposes a kind of mind that never existed in the first place.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
8/14
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
The question presupposes a kind of mind that never existed in the first place.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
1%
8/14
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
The question presupposes a kind of mind that never existed in the first place.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
8/14
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
The question presupposes a kind of mind that never existed in the first place.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
1%
8/14
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
The question presupposes a kind of mind that never existed in the first place.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
1%
8/14
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
The question presupposes a kind of mind that never existed in the first place.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
8/14
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
The question presupposes a kind of mind that never existed in the first place.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
8/14
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
The question presupposes a kind of mind that never existed in the first place.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
8/14
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
The question presupposes a kind of mind that never existed in the first place.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
41/72
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
41/72
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
41/72
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
41/72
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
41/72
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
41/72
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
41/72
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
41/72
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
41/72
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
37/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
37/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
37/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
37/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
37/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
37/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
37/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
1%
37/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
1%
37/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
1%
54/95
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
54/95
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
54/95
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
54/95
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
54/95
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
54/95
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
54/95
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
54/95
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
54/95
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
55/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
1%
55/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
1%
55/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence.
1%
34/60
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
1%
34/60
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
1%
34/60
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
1%
17/30
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the realization of cosmic or species self.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
17/30
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the realization of cosmic or species self.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
17/30
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the realization of cosmic or species self.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
78/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
78/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
78/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
13/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
13/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
13/23
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
13/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
13/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
13/23
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
57/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
1%
57/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
57/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
57/101
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
58/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
1%
58/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
1%
58/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
1%
58/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
1%
58/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
1%
58/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
1%
58/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
1%
58/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
1%
36/64
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
36/64
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
36/64
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
36/64
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
36/64
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
36/64
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
36/64
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
36/64
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
36/64
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
36/64
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
36/64
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
36/64
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
18/32
When does a person begin?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
18/32
When does a person begin?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
18/32
When does a person begin?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
18/32
When does a person begin?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
18/32
When does a person begin?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
18/32
When does a person begin?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
18/32
When does a person begin?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
18/32
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
18/32
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
18/32
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
18/32
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
18/32
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
18/32
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
18/32
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
18/32
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
18/32
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
18/32
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
18/32
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
18/32
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
18/32
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
18/32
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
18/32
What is a nation?
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
18/32
What is a nation?
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
18/32
What is a nation?
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
18/32
What is a nation?
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
18/32
What is a nation?
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
18/32
What is a nation?
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
18/32
What is a nation?
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
18/32
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
18/32
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
18/32
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
18/32
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
18/32
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
18/32
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
18/32
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
18/32
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
18/32
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
18/32
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
18/32
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
18/32
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
18/32
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
18/32
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is not where the deepest truth lives.
1%
9/16
What happens to "you" when you die?
Individuality dissolves into the One.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
9/16
What happens to "you" when you die?
Individuality dissolves into the One.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
9/16
What happens to "you" when you die?
Individuality dissolves into the One.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
9/16
What happens to "you" when you die?
Individuality dissolves into the One.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
9/16
When does a person begin?
The question presupposes a fact of the matter that isn’t there.
→
What is our place in nature?
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world.
1%
9/16
When does a person begin?
The question presupposes a fact of the matter that isn’t there.
→
Should we colonize space?
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it.
1%
9/16
When does a person begin?
The question presupposes a fact of the matter that isn’t there.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction.
1%
9/16
When does a person begin?
The question presupposes a fact of the matter that isn’t there.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
9/16
When does a person begin?
The question presupposes a fact of the matter that isn’t there.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
9/16
When does a person begin?
The question presupposes a fact of the matter that isn’t there.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
9/16
When does a person begin?
The question presupposes a fact of the matter that isn’t there.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
9/16
What is marriage?
“Marriage” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
→
What is our place in nature?
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world.
1%
9/16
What is marriage?
“Marriage” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
→
Should we colonize space?
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it.
1%
9/16
What is marriage?
“Marriage” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction.
1%
9/16
What is marriage?
“Marriage” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
9/16
What is marriage?
“Marriage” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
9/16
What is marriage?
“Marriage” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
9/16
What is marriage?
“Marriage” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
9/16
What is money?
“Money” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
→
What is our place in nature?
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world.
1%
9/16
What is money?
“Money” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
→
Should we colonize space?
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it.
1%
9/16
What is money?
“Money” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction.
1%
9/16
What is money?
“Money” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
9/16
What is money?
“Money” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
9/16
What is money?
“Money” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
9/16
What is money?
“Money” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
9/16
What is a nation?
“Nation” names a family of practices imaginatively held together.
→
What is our place in nature?
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world.
1%
9/16
What is a nation?
“Nation” names a family of practices imaginatively held together.
→
Should we colonize space?
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it.
1%
9/16
What is a nation?
“Nation” names a family of practices imaginatively held together.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction.
1%
9/16
What is a nation?
“Nation” names a family of practices imaginatively held together.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
9/16
What is a nation?
“Nation” names a family of practices imaginatively held together.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
9/16
What is a nation?
“Nation” names a family of practices imaginatively held together.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
9/16
What is a nation?
“Nation” names a family of practices imaginatively held together.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
9/16
What makes someone male or female?
“Male” and “female” are family-resemblance terms — no single essence.
→
What is our place in nature?
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world.
1%
9/16
What makes someone male or female?
“Male” and “female” are family-resemblance terms — no single essence.
→
Should we colonize space?
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it.
1%
9/16
What makes someone male or female?
“Male” and “female” are family-resemblance terms — no single essence.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction.
1%
9/16
What makes someone male or female?
“Male” and “female” are family-resemblance terms — no single essence.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
9/16
What makes someone male or female?
“Male” and “female” are family-resemblance terms — no single essence.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
9/16
What makes someone male or female?
“Male” and “female” are family-resemblance terms — no single essence.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
9/16
What makes someone male or female?
“Male” and “female” are family-resemblance terms — no single essence.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
9/16
Should we edit the human germline?
'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical.
→
What is our place in nature?
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world.
1%
9/16
Should we edit the human germline?
'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical.
→
Should we colonize space?
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it.
1%
9/16
Should we edit the human germline?
'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction.
1%
9/16
Should we edit the human germline?
'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
9/16
Should we edit the human germline?
'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
9/16
Should we edit the human germline?
'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
9/16
Should we edit the human germline?
'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The discrete person is the moral primary.
1%
78/139
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
78/139
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
78/139
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
42/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
42/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
42/75
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
42/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
42/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
42/75
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
42/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
42/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
42/75
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
28/50
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
28/50
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
28/50
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
14/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
1%
14/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
1%
14/25
What is our place in nature?
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
1%
14/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
1%
14/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
1%
14/25
Should we colonize space?
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
1%
14/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
1%
14/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
1%
14/25
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
1%
14/25
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; what is real is the connection, not its length.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
14/25
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; what is real is the connection, not its length.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
14/25
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; what is real is the connection, not its length.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
61/109
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
61/109
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
61/109
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
61/109
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
61/109
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
61/109
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
61/109
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
61/109
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
61/109
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
61/109
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
61/109
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
61/109
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
61/109
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
61/109
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
61/109
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
61/109
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
61/109
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
61/109
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
61/109
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
61/109
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
61/109
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
61/109
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
61/109
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
61/109
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
61/109
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
61/109
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
61/109
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
61/109
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
61/109
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
61/109
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
61/109
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
61/109
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
61/109
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
61/109
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
61/109
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
61/109
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
61/109
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
61/109
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
61/109
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
61/109
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
61/109
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
61/109
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
33/59
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
1%
33/59
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
1%
33/59
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
1%
33/59
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
1%
33/59
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
1%
33/59
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
1%
33/59
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
1%
33/59
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
1%
33/59
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
1%
52/93
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
52/93
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
52/93
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
52/93
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
52/93
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
52/93
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
52/93
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
52/93
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
52/93
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
77/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
77/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
77/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
77/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
77/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
77/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
77/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
77/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
77/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
77/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
77/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
77/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
77/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
77/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
77/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
1%
77/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
1%
77/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
1%
77/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
1%
29/52
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
1%
29/52
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
1%
29/52
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History is oriented toward a decisive consummation.
1%
54/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
1%
54/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
54/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
1%
54/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
1%
54/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
54/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
54/97
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
54/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
1%
54/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
54/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
1%
54/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
1%
54/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
54/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
54/97
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
54/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer.
1%
54/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering.
1%
54/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach.
1%
54/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
Does prayer change God's mind?
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted.
1%
54/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure.
1%
54/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness.
1%
54/97
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed.
1%
15/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
1%
15/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
1%
15/27
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
1%
15/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
1%
15/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
1%
15/27
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
1%
15/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
1%
15/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
1%
15/27
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
1%
15/27
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
15/27
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
15/27
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
15/27
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
15/27
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
→
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
1%
15/27
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
→
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
1%
15/27
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
→
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
1%
15/27
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
→
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
1%
10/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
10/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
10/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
10/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
10/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
10/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
10/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
1%
10/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
1%
10/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
1%
10/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
10/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
10/18
Do you really choose?
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
10/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
10/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
10/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
10/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
10/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
10/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
10/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
1%
10/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
1%
10/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
1%
10/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
10/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
10/18
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
10/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
1%
10/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
1%
10/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
1%
10/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
What makes someone the same person over time?
You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity.
1%
10/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed.
1%
10/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Different body, different person — you died in the scanner.
1%
10/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
1%
10/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
1%
10/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
1%
10/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
10/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
10/18
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
10/18
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
If the pattern of mind is there, the standing is there — regardless of species.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
10/18
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
If the pattern is present at sufficient complexity, the experience is present too.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
1%
10/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Past, present, and future are bound in cycles — duties span generations as a matter of course.
1%
10/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is part of a cycle one keeps returning to; regret is one of the gates of the cycle.
1%
10/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past beings are part of the cycle; we owe them what we owe ancestors.
1%
10/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form.
1%
10/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history.
1%
10/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Local entropy increase is part of a cycle; the moral category is participation in the cycle.
1%
10/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
10/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
10/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
10/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle.
1%
10/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory and anticipation are phases of a cycle that visits both directions.
1%
10/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
Within a cycle there is a direction; across the cycle there isn't.
1%
10/18
What makes someone the same person over time?
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
1%
10/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Past, present, and future are bound in cycles — duties span generations as a matter of course.
1%
10/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is part of a cycle one keeps returning to; regret is one of the gates of the cycle.
1%
10/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past beings are part of the cycle; we owe them what we owe ancestors.
1%
10/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form.
1%
10/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history.
1%
10/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Local entropy increase is part of a cycle; the moral category is participation in the cycle.
1%
10/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
10/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
10/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
10/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle.
1%
10/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory and anticipation are phases of a cycle that visits both directions.
1%
10/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
Within a cycle there is a direction; across the cycle there isn't.
1%
10/18
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
1%
10/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Past, present, and future are bound in cycles — duties span generations as a matter of course.
1%
10/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is part of a cycle one keeps returning to; regret is one of the gates of the cycle.
1%
10/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past beings are part of the cycle; we owe them what we owe ancestors.
1%
10/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form.
1%
10/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history.
1%
10/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Local entropy increase is part of a cycle; the moral category is participation in the cycle.
1%
10/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
10/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
10/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
10/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle.
1%
10/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory and anticipation are phases of a cycle that visits both directions.
1%
10/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
Within a cycle there is a direction; across the cycle there isn't.
1%
10/18
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
1%
10/18
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information persists or doesn't depending on whether the holder is sustained.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
10/18
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information persists or doesn't depending on whether the holder is sustained.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
1%
10/18
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information persists where it is held; deletion releases what isn't held elsewhere.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
10/18
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information persists where it is held; deletion releases what isn't held elsewhere.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
1%
10/18
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
What is held by God or sustaining practice can be restored; what isn't can't.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
10/18
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
What is held by God or sustaining practice can be restored; what isn't can't.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
1%
10/18
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists where sustained and releases where conditionally absolved; forgiveness is real ontological work.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
10/18
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists where sustained and releases where conditionally absolved; forgiveness is real ontological work.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
1%
5/9
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Past, present, and future are bound in cycles — duties span generations as a matter of course.
1%
5/9
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is part of a cycle one keeps returning to; regret is one of the gates of the cycle.
1%
5/9
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past beings are part of the cycle; we owe them what we owe ancestors.
1%
5/9
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
1%
5/9
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
1%
5/9
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
1%
5/9
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form.
1%
5/9
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history.
1%
5/9
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Local entropy increase is part of a cycle; the moral category is participation in the cycle.
1%
5/9
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
5/9
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
5/9
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
5/9
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle.
1%
5/9
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory and anticipation are phases of a cycle that visits both directions.
1%
5/9
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
Within a cycle there is a direction; across the cycle there isn't.
1%
5/9
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
1%
5/9
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
1%
5/9
Is the world created from nothing?
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
5/9
Is the physical world fully real?
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Past, present, and future are bound in cycles — duties span generations as a matter of course.
1%
5/9
Is the physical world fully real?
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is part of a cycle one keeps returning to; regret is one of the gates of the cycle.
1%
5/9
Is the physical world fully real?
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past beings are part of the cycle; we owe them what we owe ancestors.
1%
5/9
Is the physical world fully real?
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
1%
5/9
Is the physical world fully real?
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
1%
5/9
Is the physical world fully real?
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
1%
5/9
Is the physical world fully real?
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form.
1%
5/9
Is the physical world fully real?
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history.
1%
5/9
Is the physical world fully real?
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Local entropy increase is part of a cycle; the moral category is participation in the cycle.
1%
5/9
Is the physical world fully real?
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
5/9
Is the physical world fully real?
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
5/9
Is the physical world fully real?
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
5/9
Is the physical world fully real?
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle.
1%
5/9
Is the physical world fully real?
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory and anticipation are phases of a cycle that visits both directions.
1%
5/9
Is the physical world fully real?
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
Within a cycle there is a direction; across the cycle there isn't.
1%
5/9
Is the physical world fully real?
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
1%
5/9
Is the physical world fully real?
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
1%
5/9
Is the physical world fully real?
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
5/9
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Past, present, and future are bound in cycles — duties span generations as a matter of course.
1%
5/9
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is part of a cycle one keeps returning to; regret is one of the gates of the cycle.
1%
5/9
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past beings are part of the cycle; we owe them what we owe ancestors.
1%
5/9
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
1%
5/9
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
1%
5/9
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
1%
5/9
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
→
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form.
1%
5/9
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
→
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history.
1%
5/9
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
→
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Local entropy increase is part of a cycle; the moral category is participation in the cycle.
1%
5/9
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
5/9
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
5/9
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
5/9
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle.
1%
5/9
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory and anticipation are phases of a cycle that visits both directions.
1%
5/9
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
Within a cycle there is a direction; across the cycle there isn't.
1%
5/9
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.
1%
5/9
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
→
Does history have a direction or meaning?
History recurs in cosmic cycles.
1%
5/9
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
5/9
Does history have a direction or meaning?
The truth was once known and has been lost; the task is recovery.
→
When does a person begin?
A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence.
1%
5/9
Does history have a direction or meaning?
The truth was once known and has been lost; the task is recovery.
→
What is marriage?
Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make.
1%
5/9
Does history have a direction or meaning?
The truth was once known and has been lost; the task is recovery.
→
What is money?
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features.
1%
5/9
Does history have a direction or meaning?
The truth was once known and has been lost; the task is recovery.
→
What is a nation?
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character.
1%
5/9
Does history have a direction or meaning?
The truth was once known and has been lost; the task is recovery.
→
What makes someone male or female?
Sex is a real biological kind with given content.
1%
5/9
Does history have a direction or meaning?
The truth was once known and has been lost; the task is recovery.
→
Should we edit the human germline?
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.
1%
5/9
Does history have a direction or meaning?
The truth was once known and has been lost; the task is recovery.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
5/9
Does history have a direction or meaning?
The truth was once known and has been lost; the task is recovery.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
5/9
Does history have a direction or meaning?
The truth was once known and has been lost; the task is recovery.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
5/9
Does history have a direction or meaning?
The truth was once known and has been lost; the task is recovery.
→
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
1%
5/9
Does history have a direction or meaning?
The truth was once known and has been lost; the task is recovery.
→
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
1%
5/9
Does history have a direction or meaning?
The truth was once known and has been lost; the task is recovery.
→
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
1%
5/9
Does history have a direction or meaning?
The truth was once known and has been lost; the task is recovery.
→
Is the world created from nothing?
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance.
1%
5/9
Does history have a direction or meaning?
The truth was once known and has been lost; the task is recovery.
→
Is the physical world fully real?
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting.
1%
5/9
Does history have a direction or meaning?
The truth was once known and has been lost; the task is recovery.
→
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good.
1%
5/9
Does history have a direction or meaning?
The truth was once known and has been lost; the task is recovery.
→
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
The community is saved together or not at all.
1%
5/9
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Personal decision or conversion experience is the authority.
→
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The community of persons is the moral primary.
1%
5/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Each soul stands before God alone.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
5/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Each soul stands before God alone.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
5/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Each soul stands before God alone.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
5/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Each soul stands before God alone.
→
What is our place in nature?
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform.
1%
5/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Each soul stands before God alone.
→
Should we colonize space?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
1%
5/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Each soul stands before God alone.
→
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Genetic modification is cultivation by other means.
1%
5/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Each soul stands before God alone.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Creedal documents and Scripture-as-doctrine are the authority.
1%
5/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the collective historical work of the oppressed.
→
How much weight do future people deserve?
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet.
1%
5/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the collective historical work of the oppressed.
→
Is regret rational?
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer.
1%
5/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the collective historical work of the oppressed.
→
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future.
1%
5/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the collective historical work of the oppressed.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust the practice, not the practitioner.
1%
5/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the collective historical work of the oppressed.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
'Revelation' is a category communities construct for what counts as authoritative.
1%
5/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the collective historical work of the oppressed.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
Whether an LLM 'knows' is the constructive question the practice has to answer.
1%
5/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the collective historical work of the oppressed.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
5/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the collective historical work of the oppressed.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
5/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the collective historical work of the oppressed.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
5/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the collective historical work of the oppressed.
→
Is reality fundamentally digital?
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure.
1%
5/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the collective historical work of the oppressed.
→
Are there indivisible units of experience?
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time.
1%
5/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the collective historical work of the oppressed.
→
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams.
1%
5/9
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Liberation is the collective historical work of the oppressed.
→
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
The category does not apply — the school is non-religious.
1%
36/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
36/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
36/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
36/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
36/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
36/65
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
36/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
36/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
36/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
36/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
36/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
36/65
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
36/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
1%
36/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
1%
36/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
1%
36/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
1%
36/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
1%
36/65
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
57/103
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
57/103
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
57/103
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
57/103
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
16/29
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary.
→
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos.
1%
54/98
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
54/98
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
→
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all.
1%
76/138
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
76/138
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
76/138
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
→
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
1%
11/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
1%
11/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
1%
11/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
1%
11/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
1%
11/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
1%
11/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
1%
11/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
1%
11/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
11/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
11/20
Do you really choose?
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
11/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
1%
11/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
1%
11/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
1%
11/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
1%
11/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
1%
11/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
1%
11/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
1%
11/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
11/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
11/20
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
11/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
Death is genuinely the end.
1%
11/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain.
1%
11/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind.
1%
11/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration.
1%
11/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce.
1%
11/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it.
1%
11/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing.
1%
11/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
1%
11/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
1%
11/20
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
→
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
1%
11/20
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but accessible only from within a tradition.
→
What happens to "you" when you die?
A soul continues into another mode of being.
1%
11/20
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but accessible only from within a tradition.
→
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Trust expertise only insofar as it coheres with first-person experience.
1%
11/20
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but accessible only from within a tradition.
→
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
What gets called 'revelation' is real direct experience — not a text.
1%
11/20
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but accessible only from within a tradition.
→
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no first-person experience, so no knowing in the relevant sense.
1%
11/20
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Truth is real but accessible only from within a tradition.
→
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Through direct contemplative union with reality.