Public opinion
It’s easy to forgot public opinion when it comes to making decisions on utilitarianism basis and how it is still a factor to our happiness.

Would it be right to kill one man and use his organs to save five other people? (Trolley problem)

If we assume by saving the five lives would result in more happiness, this seems like the obvious choice for any utilitarianist. I’d like to point out other people opinion’s that are not directly involved also play a role.
Would you like to live in a country that did this? I’m assuming you’ll say no, if enough people are unhappy about the situation this can counteract the total happiness gained to the population by these five individuals survival, so in a utilitarianist basis it would still be seen as wrong.  

Fundamental rights
Fundamental rights were a way of explaining about our thoughts on moral issues to ourselves and other people, if you feel against killing an innocent life to save five others you might say “It’s fundamentally wrong to kill an innocent person.”

This what happens in the Trolley problem, (watch video in link) when you give people the first scenario, they feel its right to save the five and they may say “It’s right to save more lives” you can ask them are they sure and they’d agree, though when you give them the second example they’d disagree and think of a new reason to explain their feelings in both examples. We do this to explain the reasons why we make any decision, there are thousands of psychological experiments were seemingly unrelated issues influence our decisions, it has been shown that people eat more under blue light but if you were to ask people why did you eat as much as you did, I doubt they would say because of the blue light, people tip more when it’s sunny, you are more likely to say yes when holding a hot drink than a cold one, this type of psychology is also on display if you've ever tried to define works such as "game". So if people just slightly makeup reasons why they think something is right or wrong what should we believe?  

Summary
I don't know if fundamental rights are right or wrong, fundamental rights don't have to give you the best solution in every scenario but it has to increase happiness in the long term and any system that would increase happiness faster would trump the one proceeding it. I have no idea what systems of governance or in society increase happiness, though I do think happiness is what we should be basing it on.    

Measurement of happiness

If we had a machine that could make predictions on how to increase future happiness, what would it’s measurement of happiness be?

• Total happiness

If it measured total happiness, it could lead to a result were we are all more unhappy but there are more of us so total happiness has increased. The mere addition paradox.

• Average happiness

If it was to measure average happiness, the machine could make decisions to kill anyone unhappy to increase the average happiness.

Both measurements don’t always give satisfactory results, so is there a measurement that can overcome both these problems?

• Total happiness with exceptions

If we allow the machine to make decisions to increase long term total happiness, though we add an exception in that it can only add new people if by adding those new people it increases long term average happiness.

Though still hardly satisfactory in that it’s slightly too complicated to be taken as an axiom and you can always still argue some results are not moral and it would be hard for me to disagree. What also makes me feel uneasy is should 0 be neutral or total unhappiness, if we started considering unhappiness to be in negative numbers you get many more unsettling events we would have to assume to be normal and okay morally. I want to do some more research on the the cognitive neuroscience and other aspect of happiness and hopefully when I feel I can turn this into practical advice you will see more blogs.

Predestination paradox In 1943 Rene Barjavel posed the question

“What would happen if a man went back in time and killed his own grandfather?”

Without his grandfather one of his parents would cease to exist and therefore so would he also cease to exist, if he ceases to exist he would not go back in time and kill his grandfather so his grandfather would give birth to one of his parents and he would also come into existence, meaning he would go back in time to kill his grandfather and so on....

Even physicists in the relevant fields can only give their informed postulates on what may happen as no theories directly answer such questions, those many theories indirectly touch upon such problems. This post is not to identify is time travel possible rather the hypothetical question of the grandfather paradox and to put forward a hypothesis on a potential answer.


Step-by-step I want to illustrate that people's inconsistencies on causality causes predestination paradox and other dilemmas and thinking of causality going backwards in time as similar to going forward in time would resolve these problems.  

Imagine being in a time machine travelling forward in time 10 years, looking out the window of the time machine it would look as if everything had just instantly changed, trees look instantly bigger, newer cars, all instantly. In reality all the rules that run the universe have taken place, even when travelling through time. If we believe travelling backwards in time works the same way I can begin to explain why the “grandfather paradox” isn’t such a problem.

Scenario 1
Imagine being in a room with a time machine and a table with a pencil on top of it. You push the pencil off the table and walk into the time machine and go back in time to when the pencil was back on the table. Now looking out the window of the time machine what would you see?  it would look as if the pencil instantly appears on the table. But we are going to suggest that it didn’t just appear and just as travelling forward in time, if one billiard ball hits another one the energy is transferred and it works in the same way traveling backwards in time. So the pencil doesn’t just appear on the table, the energy transferred from the pencil to the floor when it landed goes back into the pencil and the process is reversed until the pencil is back onto the table.

Scenario 2
Imagine the same scenario but this time you pick up the pencil off the floor and take it with you into the time machine. Now looking out the window of the time machine what would you see? If we don’t assume the pencil will just appear there and it has to go through a process to get there how would the pencil get there? We are going to suggest it wouldn't. This is a slightly more complex issue but hopefully we will be able to explain it.

If I was to blast off on a rocket time machine and travel 50 years into the future, I may come back to see my brother has a wife and kids, now it would be strange to assume there would be another me there with a wife and kids as of course this couldn't happen if I was in stasis. Just as you can’t visit yourself in the future we will suggest you can’t visit yourself in the past. Anyone/anything traveling through time puts itself in stasis, so when traveling forward in time everything else ages apart from the items in stasis and similarly going back in time. If we assume that items can visit themselves in the past we will get two dilemmas

1. Imagine I bring the pencil back in time to visit itself on the table and then used that pencil to snap the pencil on the table in half, you will have a paradox analogous to the grandfather paradox.
2. The second problem would be now you have more mass in the universe as there are two pencils, more mass equals more energy braking a fundamental rule of physics.

Scenario 3
The grandfather paradox is more similar to the case where I get someone to make a paper aeroplane and bring that back in time and use that paper aeroplane to kill the person who made it. For this example I can’t use a similar example for going forward in time but we will follow through the same process’ as the last two examples. If I was to blast off on a rocket time machine and travel 50 years in time, the future would be different than if you maybe have stayed on earth and decided to have a wife and kids.

When you put yourself in stasis your interactions with the world change than if you were to decided not to go into stasis. I am also going to suggest this is the same going back in time, that if you put yourself in stasis while going back in time the past will be different but not as you know it. This next part can be very difficult to understand intuitively, but I am going to suggest it doesn't matter if you kill the man who made the paper aeroplane.  When I go back in time the process for everything else apart from the items in stasis goes backwards.Even though it seems strange that an intrinsic part of its process has been taken out (killing the paper folder) as the paper aeroplane has been inside the time machine it hasn’t gone back in time to reach the point where it was folded, so it doesn't need to be folded again.

This is my conclusion for the grandfather paradox as well. The process to make me do not need to be redone when I go back in time to kill my grandfather and I would be able to kill him

Fox, chicken and grain problem
This is a solution to simplify the fox, chicken and grain problem and other similar puzzles.

Imagine you have to transport a fox, chicken and a bag of grain from one side of the river to the other. But you can only take one at a time and you can’t leave the chicken with the grain and you can’t leave the fox with the chicken.

This can be worked out by trial and error. Similar puzzles with more items to take over and more rules can be more tedious to work out so here’s a solution to simplify these problems. If an item is on the first side of the river lets say it is in position 0 and lets say when it is on the other side of the river it is in position 1. If we want to represent the position of all three items we could do this.

FOX    CHICKEN   GRAIN

  0             0               0

  
Discrete space state

Here’s a 3-dimensional map of all possible moves when there are no rules.

1. Whenever we go from left to right on the yellow lines it represents the fox going from side 0 to side 1.
2. Whenever we go from the bottom to the top on the blue lines it represents the chicken going from side 0 to side 1.
3. Whenever we go from the front to the back on the green lines it represents the grain going from side 0 to side 1.

1. When you go from right to left on the yellow lines it represents the fox going back to the first side.
2. When you go from top to bottom on the blue lines it represents the chicken going back to the first side.
3. When you go from back to front on the green lines it represents the grain going back to the first side.

Adding rules Now we need to manually remove disallowed paths.The rules in our original game were

1. We were not allowed to take the fox leaving the chicken and grain together
2. We were not allowed to take the grain leaving the fox and chicken together

If Fox 0/1 = Chicken 0/1 on the same vertex remove the line grain from that vertex. If Chicken 0/1 = Grain 0/1 on the same vertex remove the line Fox from that vertex. Now the solutions becomes much easier to see, by taking the steps by following the line from 0,0,0 to 1,1,1.

if (fox = chicken ){remove lines that are not chicken and fox}

How to know what points connects to other points

If we have a single point in 0 dimensions, that will be point 1 of dimension
If we create another point representing point 1 in its set

The first number represents their number in their own 0 dimensional set, the second number number represents it's number in the 1 dimensional set and so on.

Ever point on the same dimension where the number is the same on the dimention below will connect