Evident creator (1) by a truth of practical reason, absent knowledge of whether there exists a ground (stable ground) and, if so, what it consists in, that knowledge (ground knowledge) is itself a ground (the default ground) : re `^*\(\d+\) (.+)`s see `^*argue\+ that, ${same}`p @ default/._/text.notes.brec (2) despite long efforts [in the past], ultimately|{in the end} {we have}|{∃ among us} (at present) no settled consensus on the ground question [or its likes] : re `the ground question` viz. `whether there exists a ground.+and.+what it consists in`p (3) we know|have (at present) of no way|method to [reliably] {gauge|determine|predict an upper limit|bound on}|bound {how long}|{the period|{length of time}} it could|might take to acquire ground knowledge or deal with any stable ground we thereby apprehend : see `^*\(1\)` : see `^*\(2\)` : see `^*\(3\)` : ∴ (4) ──────────────── (4) practical reason directs us to carry on for a period of time that in prospect (given our present state of knowledge) would be open-ended and likely long (5) a safehold highly fit to secure the long-term survival of mind-bearing populations extends throughout the cosmos : ad `long-term` : over periods on the scale of cosmogonal time, as opposed to the (relatively short) scale of geogenic time : re `scale of cosmogonal time` see `stability on the longer ${same}` @ ~/work/safehold/40.observation.brec : re `\(relatively short\) scale of geogenic time` see `the scope.+not restricted to.+the ${same}`s @ ~/work/safehold/40.observation.brec : re `(a safehold.+to secure the.+survival of) (mind)-bearing (populations)`p see `${1} ${3} of beings \(like us\) that have ${2}`p @ ~/work/safehold/40.observation.brec : see `^*\(4\)` : see `^*\(5\)` : ∴ (6) ──────────────── (6) the safehold’s fitness as a means coincides with the end to which reason (in our present state) directs us - the coincidence surprises because it lacks for an obvious explanation - an obvious place to begin looking, however, is the aetiology of the safehold - an aetiologic survey that aims for exhaustive coverage by typological division turns up the following results table, Known, possible explanantia for the safehold ┈ explain- truth mode name of explanans able of explanans yes necessary physical necessity supernatural design ┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈ contingent natural cosmogonal selection constrained multiverse ensemble mundane design ┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈ no null, brute fact : re `an aetiologic survey.+by typological division` see `^*Allan.+2026.+Aetiology of the cosmic safehold` @ sources.brec - none of these in itself can explain the coincidence - each known explanans for the safehold is either null or given to be indeterminate : re `given.+indeterminate` see `^*• .+explainable by a \(yet unknown\) theory` @ ~/work/safehold/aetiology/text.brec : re `given.+indeterminate` see `^*• God had reason \(yet unknown\) to make the safehold` @ ~/work/safehold/aetiology/text.brec : re `given.+indeterminate` see `^*• .+cull of a \(yet unknown\) natural process` @ ~/work/safehold/aetiology/text.brec : re `given.+indeterminate` see `^*• .+bound.+by a \(yet unknown\) constraint`s @ ~/work/safehold/aetiology/text.brec : re `given.+indeterminate` see `^*• cosmocrafters have reason \(yet unknown\) to.+craft`s @ ~/work/safehold/aetiology/text.brec - therefore none quite suffices to explain even the safehold, let alone the coincidence in which it takes part - yet reason also takes part, and some of the explanatia can be determined by the part that it takes - these are the artificial, design explanantia - there are two of them • supernatural design by God : re `^*• (.+ design) .+` see `^^${same}$` @ ~/work/safehold/aetiology/text.brec • mundane design by cosmic creators : re `^*• (.+ design) .+` see `^^${same}$` @ ~/work/safehold/aetiology/text.brec (7) the mind of a creative designer (as figures in the two design explanantia) can both conform to practical-rational ground direction and (within range of its competence) mediate the causation of things (artifacts) as effects of that conformance (8) competent cosmic designers/creators are given in both design explanantia : see `^*\(7\)` : see `^*\(8\)` : ∴ (9) ──────────────── (9) the creatable artifacts of (7) would (in the case of a design explanans) include artifacts of cosmic structure such as the safehold : see `^*\(7\)` : see `^*\(9\)` : ∴ (10) ──────────────── (10) the explanans of supernatural design might be determined by a stable ground unknown to us (at present), but known to God, that entails our long-term persistence : see `^*\(1\)` : see `^*\(7\)` : see `^*\(9\)` : ∴ (11) ──────────────── (11) the explanans of mundane design might be determined by the default ground : see `^*\(10\)` : see `^*\(11\)` : ∴ (12) ──────────────── (12) it is clear how each design explanans might be determined such that it explains both the safehold and the coincidence in which it takes part - the same does not apply to the other non-null explanantia - these are the natural explanantia - there are three of them • physical necessity entailing a safehold : re `• (physical necessity) .+` see `^^${same}$` @ ~/work/safehold/aetiology/text.brec • cosmogonal path selection tending toward safeholding : re `• (.+) path (s.+?) .+` see `^^na.+${1} ${2}$` @ ~/work/safehold/aetiology/text.brec • multiverse ensemble constrained toward safeholding : re `• (.+) (constrained) .+` see `^^${2} ${1}$` @ ~/work/safehold/aetiology/text.brec (13) it is unclear how any of the natural explanantia might be determined to include a mechanism or process, aside from mind as it figures in the design explanantia, that does the same work : ad `the same work` : explains both the safehold and the coincidence in which it takes part : re `: (explains.+)`s see `^*\(12\).+${same}`sp : see `^*\(12\)` : see `^*\(13\)` : ∴ (14) ──────────────── (14) the two design explanantia have the greatest explanatory power among all known, possible explanantia for the safehold : see `^*\(14\)` : ∴ (15) ──────────────── (15) belief in either of the design explanantia would be justified