Self-valuing is necessarily the case for all life, not just our human or earth-animal ones. Thus it is objective, in the true sense; how do we know this? We know it because it is impossible to conceive a life that does not follow self-valuing logic.
If you can conceive a life that does not follow self-valuing logic, I would commend you. But I would strive to show how in fact such life is indeed governed by the deepest logic that proves and provides the fundament of all things, living or not.
I have a problem with any claim along the lines of “well causality might not be the case somewhere else! we just think causality is universal or necessary because we always see it! but look at the quantum world and clearly there isn;t even causality there, so HA!” …I tend to dismiss sub-minds that say such things with a gesture, usually directed toward my Escape key. But hey, let’s break it down for fun. IS it fun? Not really. But sure.
“Principle of sufficient reason (PSR) is not necessarily valid everywhere/always (objectively)!”
“Name one instance where it is invalid”
“Quantums!!!”
“Just because something appears random to you, does not mean it is actually random; it means that whatever causality is governing it has no way of communicating or relating itself to you, thus to you there is no schema of order impressed upon the event with respect to how you measure/detect what is happening there. It is also quite possible that at the sub-atomic level the relative speed of time (change) is such that for every iteration at our own temporal level, perhaps 1 billion iterations had taken place at the level of the causality of the sub-atomic, in which case there would be literally no way for us to make any sense of all those changes with our relatively higher time-scale. Thus when we “measure” the sub-atomic (throw another sub-particle at it) we will get a random point within 1 billion causal iterations, because we have no way of timing our measurements meaningfully to anything within the 1 billion iterations.”
“No, physicists say that it really IS RANDOM! Everything is just a probability distribution!”
“You are confusing methodology with ontology. Probability is about assigning relative quantitative values to certain outcomes, and using this as a tool for forming predictions about something that we do not know yet.”
“Ok well, PSR might not be the case in some cases, there is no reason why everything needs to have a reason!”
“Name one thing that has no reason or cause.”
“…”
“Just because I can’t name one doesn’t mean there can’t be one.”
“The concept of “reason” and “cause” is just another way of saying “exists”. If something had no reason or cause to be what it is, then it would not be what it is, it would be something else. You cannot even talk about what something is without talking about how and why it is what it is; that is what “is” means. You don’t get to pretend that “it is” can mean something “for no reason”. Furthermore, you would have absolutely no way to conceive or talk about anything that truly had no reasons or causes for existing, because such a thing would make absolutely no sense whatsoever, it would be absolutely meaningless, not just to you but to any possible perspective of meaning, understanding, reason or logic or language. So, in light of this, for you to posit that such things exist beyond the scope of the PSR means only that you have abandoned your own reasoning capacity, that you have given up on having a mind. As soon as you actually think that something can happen for no reason, your mind is dead.”