A surprising coincidence (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 (given our present state of knowledge) sanctions and deems necessary a will to endure for a period of time that (in present prospect) would be open-ended and likely long (5) natural selection has predisposed us to endure over the long term (6) a safehold highly fit to secure the long-term survival of 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 ${same}`s @ ~/work/safehold/40.observation.brec : re `(a safehold.+to secure.+populations)` see `${1} of beings \(like us\)`p @ ~/work/safehold/40.observation.brec : see `^*\(4\)` : see `^*\(5\)` : see `^*\(6\)` : ∴ (7) ──────────────── (7) three objects of seemingly independent origin coincide: those to which i) natural selection has predisposed us, ii) reason would direct our wills, and iii) the safehold is a fit means - the coincidence surprises because it lacks for an obvious explanation