If the claim "This is the best of all possible worlds" were true, then you would not be questioning it. i.e. No one disputes the claim "Liquid water is wet". So the fact that you have raised the possibility itself indicates the dubitability of the claim.
There are probably greater worlds/zones than Earth; we have spotted exo-planets. Our species is probably not the best in the universe. This is because of resource allocation. Resources can be, and probably are, allocated in greater ways in the universe.
If we're talking about existence, our future children's forms may already be known, especially in purer simulations where bodies are created differently.
Somewhere, there is a comprehensive view of species.
It's my guess that we're not so significant for our species but more our minds.
Reply to DingoJones It is not the 'one making the claim' who has the burden of proof (that is something those with no expertise but big mouths say on youtube videos).
Consider: 'the one making the claim has the burden of proof' is a claim. So now you have to discharge the burden of proof. And no matter how you do it, you will have to make some more claims. And on and on it will go, without end. Thus, if 'the one making the claim has the burden of proof' is true, then nothing can be proved, including that claim.
The lesson: stop pronouncing confidently on matters you know nothing about.
It is true you can't eat shit. In an other world, shit would taste good, and it would be nutritious.
Not if you deserve to eat nasty tasting shit. Then a world in which shit tasted good and was nutritious would be a world in which you do not get what you deserve, and thus it would be sub optimal.
It is conceivable that everything that happens is for the best. For what that would take is for this world to be as Reason wants it to be. And given that Reason is omnipotent, it is reasonable to suppose that this world 'is' exactly as Reason wants it to be. And thus reasonable to suppose that everything that happens in it, is ultimately for the best.
god must be atheistJanuary 27, 2020 at 21:21#3762870 likes
Reply to Wallows how could it be an actual world? Wouldn't that be equivalent to saying that it 'is' the case rather than it is possibly the case? (No doubt what is actual is possible, but what is possible is not necessarily actual - so possible can't mean actual).
So I think it must mean 'imaginary'. But then the claim is that this is the best world imaginable.
However, most people think they can imagine somewhere better.
Perhaps, however, if they truly understood the nature of the world they are living in, they would realize that they could not imagine a better place.
But then that just amounts to saying that you can't imagine anywhere better once you understand that this world is the best.
But in that case we could just say that this world is maximally good or something. The addition of 'best of all possible worlds' seems to add nothing.
hmmm, seems super easy, or impossible, based on such limited information (I could give an answer that some may agree with, and others may claim it is not even evidence)...if you can answer this one, then I can easily answer yours:
I am the best of all possible people. Prove me wrong.
What's a 'possible world'? I have no clear idea.
— Bartricks
One where things could have happened differently.
I was worried that this was just a word game (a certain interpretations of definitions means that this is THE ONLY POSSIBLE world, so of course it is the best). Reminds me of christian apologists defining god as "the most perfect being" and of course a being that exists is more perfect than one that does not...so therefor god exists :roll:
Yep, a perfect world, is one where nobody wants anything more, at which point everything then HAS TO become deterministic.
This is actually pretty interesting to consider. I can't come up with reasons why a world where nobody wants anything is necessarily more deterministic than a world where people want stuff??
This is actually pretty interesting to consider. I can't come up with reasons why a world where nobody wants anything is necessarily more deterministic than a world where people want stuff??
Because if panpsychism is true, then nobody would want anything more than what they have. I know, it sounds like communism or some such; but, this is just a point of maxima convergence.
The world is maximally good. That doesn't mean everyone gets what they want. It depends what you want. Some things one ought not to want - some wants are bad to have. And some people - lots, no doubt - don't deserve to get what they want.
Reply to Wallows I was not 'trying' to say something, I 'did' say that this world is maximally good.
I was then trying to figure out what 'you' might have meant by 'best possible world'. And it seems you have to mean that it is the best world imaginable.
But then that seems obviously false unless one adds to it that it is the best world imaginable once one understands that it is maximally good.
And that's equivalent just to saying that this world is maximally good.
But then you decided that this is equivalent to saying that everyone gets what they want, which is not something I said or believe.
So, the differences are superficial? A world where everyone gets what they want can only exist in an infinitesimally small timeframe; but, for that moment in time, the wavefunction won't collapse.
then nobody would want anything more than what they have.
And now everyone wants more than they have. Wouldn't their "wants" be equally deterministic to the "lack of wants" in the other world? Heck, "wants" actually seem more deterministic?? I can directly see how their actions are determined by their wants...?
Nobody "wants" air. Does the abundance of air make our world more deterministic? If there was limited air would the world become less deterministic??
And I don't exactly see the connection to panpsychism...but that is probably because that has always felt like mumbo jumbo to me...so rocks, and space, and everything has consciousness?? I can't prove it wrong, but why anyone would put forward such a hypothesis is beyond me.
Reply to Wallows I do not know what you mean. I am talking at a conceptual level. Goodness and 'getting what you want' are not equivalent. Sometimes it is good to get what you want, sometimes it isn't. So 'good' and 'getting what I want' are not the same notion. And thus a maximally good world can also be one in which lots of wants are frustrated.
You must admit this too, for you think this is the best world and yet clearly many wants go frustrated in it.
I don't think the process can keep on going on forever unless there truly are no limits to wants. But, at that point it would be the same as saying that a universe where every want can be satisfied is tantamount to a perfect world, no?
I don't think the process can keep on going on forever unless there truly are no limits to wants. But, at that point it would be the same as saying that a universe where every want can be satisfied is tantamount to a perfect world, no?
I was just responding to the deterministic aspect. Even in a world where every want is met, only the meeting of wants would be wholly deterministic. Unless we assume some crazy panpsychism, the majority of the universe would still operate under the same amount of determinism or lack there of as it currently does.
Also, for "no wants", I was thinking more of a Star Trek post scarcity situation. To say that "all wants are meant" means things like logic and reason and "A=A" no longer necessarily apply, as people will have all sorts of conflicting wants that are somehow met.
Yep, a perfect world, is one where nobody wants anything more, at which point everything then HAS TO become deterministic.
This is what started my responses. It says "everything then has to become deterministic". Surely not "everything"? All sorts of things happen all around the universe that have nothing to do with the "wants" of conscious beings. Picture our world 6 billion years ago, whether determinism hold true would be entirely separate from wants because there was no one around to "want". There are still many aspects of our world where there is no one around to "want".
But again, we have to place reasonable limits on "wants" or the whole thing is nonsense (the antinatalists' wants COULD NEVER coexist with those who want to reproduce...or what happens when I "want" the sun to be made of cheese? Infinite "worlds" would be popping in and out of existence constantly if all wants were suddenly fulfilled)
Got to run for the day...I will respond later if you find anything I am saying is worthy of discussion...I just realized, are you already thinking the world is almost entirely deterministic and our will is the last hiding place for an undetermined world? I am probably good with that. I was viewing things from "we don't know if the world is deterministic or not", and from that perspective, I don't see how infinitely fulfilled "wants" changes the whole, just one aspect.
Sorry, this is getting a bit vague, and I may need to use way more words, unfortunately, haha. Let me know where I am unclear, and I will try to improve it.
Reply to Wallows In order for you to assert that "'this' is the best of all possible worlds" you presumably have knowledge about the rest of all possible worlds. How many possible worlds do you know of?
I think science supports the belief that this is the best of all possible worlds. Think of the teleological argument in its new form, intelligent design. A physical constant just digits different and life simply doesn't evolve. Note that by "life" I mean the familiar carbon-based life on earth and perhaps on other planets.
What's interesting is the qualification possible which implies the existence of constraints to, if this is being assumed here, god's creativity. Yet, we know that god is omnipotent and relatively simple organisms like us, possessed with a modicum of intelligence and imagination, can conceive of a better world e.g a disease-free, peaceful world. Surely, god could've done better. Perhaps god's omniscience gets in the way; god realizes that if humans are to possess free will, he'll have to allow some "imperfections" to creep into his creation. What of god's omnibenevolence? Does he not realize that being alive comes packaged with a great deal of suffering and may not be at all desirable? Could it be that god wants us to sort our own shit out.
Most importantly, whether a creator exists or not, this universe is fine-tuned for life and not humans. That would go a long way in explaining the many difficulties we and other organisms face - it's one life-form against another and no matter who wins, the house, life itself, wins.
All sorts of things happen all around the universe that have nothing to do with the "wants" of conscious beings.
— ZhouBoTong
I don't necessarily disagree here but wonder what makes you say that that is not the case?
Because if it is true then meeting the "wants" of conscious beings would only change a small fraction of the universe. It would change nothing in all aspects of the universe that are not touched by consciousness (our current knowledge would place everything but earth and the short reach beyond it by humanity as being unrelated to wants). But if we are already assuming the rest of the universe is 100% deterministic, then obviously this does not matter...but if the rest of the universe is only 99.9% deterministic, then it does (we don't need to debate the percent of determinism...if you think it is 100%, I am happy to agree).
I just realized, are you already thinking the world is almost entirely deterministic and our will is the last hiding place for an undetermined world?
— ZhouBoTong
Pertaining to any conscious entity I don't see why not.
Fair enough. I have always FELT that the 100% determinist explanation made the most sense. But I have also gotten a strong sense from philosophy types that the question is far from settled...so I am hesitant to make assumptions in that regard.
On a side note (somewhat connected to your "More like the inverse" comment):
Does it make sense to you that a "world" where ALL wants are met is nonsense? It could not exist without destroying logical understanding. Even individuals have wants that conflict with THEIR OWN other wants...let alone differences between the wants of different people. Unless we play word games, no one can have their cake and eat it too, but in a world of infinitely granted wants, they would (and we can't even guess what that would look like...after they eat the cake do all its partially digested parts disappear from inside my body and re-integrate into the formed piece of cake in my hand? If it is not in my stomach, can I still say I ate it? It actually sounds like one type of determinism has gone out the window?)
Because if it is true then meeting the "wants" of conscious beings would only change a small fraction of the universe. It would change nothing in all aspects of the universe that are not touched by consciousness (our current knowledge would place everything but earth and the short reach beyond it by humanity as being unrelated to wants). But if we are already assuming the rest of the universe is 100% deterministic, then obviously this does not matter...but if the rest of the universe is only 99.9% deterministic, then it does (we don't need to debate the percent of determinism...if you think it is 100%, I am happy to agree).
The determinism is 99%...(9)
And there is no "center" of the universe, so what happens anywhere in it happens in other dimensions. I don't quite understand how they interact if the membrane theory is true.
Does it make sense to you that a "world" where ALL wants are met is nonsense? It could not exist without destroying logical understanding. Even individuals have wants that conflict with THEIR OWN other wants...let alone differences between the wants of different people. Unless we play word games, no one can have their cake and eat it too, but in a world of infinitely granted wants, they would (and we can't even guess what that would look like...after they eat the cake do all its partially digested parts disappear from inside my body and re-integrate into the formed piece of cake in my hand? If it is not in my stomach, can I still say I ate it? It actually sounds like one type of determinism has gone out the window?)
No, information isn't static. Retrograde-determinism might not apply...
In order for you to assert that "'this' is the best of all possible worlds" you presumably have knowledge about the rest of all possible worlds. How many possible worlds do you know of?
In order for you to assert that "'this' is the best of all possible worlds" you presumably have knowledge about the rest of all possible worlds. How many possible worlds do you know of?
Did you consider the notions of hell and heaven? Both exist as concepts of worst and best case scenarios. That these concepts exist suggests to me that our common belief is that both the situation could've been worse (hell) and also better (heaven). I don't know on what basis one could then pronounce that this is the best of all possible worlds.
Actually if one really thinks of it carefully I think this actually is the best of all possible worlds for the simple reason that life, as we know it, generally thrives well between extremes of conditions: too cold or too hot, no life, etc. What of heaven then? It is after all an extreme of happiness. I guess heaven is a place where all opposite extremes, except happiness/joy cancel out: it isn't too hot and neither is it too cold, etc. Why is happiness/joy an exception to the rule that life prefers to exist in between extremes? There's a name for organisms preferring extreme conditions: extremophiles. Organisms that like extremely hot conditions are called thermophiles. Are we humans, extremophiles, the kind that prefers "extreme" happiness? The notion of heaven suggests that we are happiness-philes.
If we are extremophiles and it seems that I'm right since we seem to be on some "grand" quest for heaven (perpetual orgasmic state), then we're outliers, like all extremophiles are.
Given that, as I mentioned, life generally thrives in the middle, between extremes, it seems that, even if not wholly, at least partially, earth and maybe other planets, is/are the best of all possible worlds because not only are conditions just right for most life but it also has extreme environments for extremophiles (like us).
I wonder though if our conception of heaven is delusional because it seems that life can't tolerate extremes and if that's the case, would a state of eternal joy be desirable? Who's to say that an extreme state of joy wouldn't end up destroying us and all life? The Buddha and his middle-path begins to make a whole lot of sense.
I guess I'm saying that what we conceive of as a better world (heaven) may not be all that desirable; after all it fits the description of an extreme environment where everyone is in perpetual bliss.
Actually if one really thinks of it carefully I think this actually is the best of all possible worlds for the simple reason that life, as we know it, generally thrives well between extremes of conditions: too cold or too hot, no life, etc. What of heaven then? It is after all an extreme of happiness. I guess heaven is a place where all opposite extremes, except happiness/joy cancel out: it isn't too hot and neither is it too cold, etc. Why is happiness/joy an exception to the rule that life prefers to exist in between extremes? There's a name for organisms preferring extreme conditions: extremophiles. Organisms that like extremely hot conditions are called thermophiles. Are we humans, extremophiles, the kind that prefers "extreme" happiness? The notion of heaven suggests that we are happiness-philes.
Well, I can tell you it has the hallmarks of insanity all around it.
I wonder though if our conception of heaven is delusional because it seems that life can't tolerate extremes and if that's the case, would a state of eternal joy be desirable? Who's to say that an extreme state of joy wouldn't end up destroying us and all life? The Buddha and his middle-path begins to make a whole lot of sense.
I guess I'm saying that what we conceive of as a better world (heaven) may not be all that desirable; after all it fits the description of an extreme environment where everyone is in perpetual bliss.
Yes, it is delusional and should be recognized as such.
a universe where every want can be satisfied is tantamount to a perfect world, no?
What about wanting to want. A goal. A purpose. Something to aim for.
If have everything I want, I have no motivation to do anything, which is by itself not moral or immoral, or good or bad; but it feels bad. Stagnancy. Stagrob. (Rob being Nancy's husband.)
________________
P.s. i realize this aspect of the topic has already been discussed after the post I responded to.
Well, can't an approximation be made for each and every individual? I think China is kinda doing that with a social credit system and I don't hear uproars over that.
Well, I can tell you it has the hallmarks of insanity all around it.
How so?
I'm not quite clear on the matter. Heaven is advertised as a place of perpetual bliss but I wonder if that's the truth or a misunderstanding of the concept. What I mean is that perpetual bliss can be achieved through maintaining all conditions within a desirable range: to use a temperature analogy, we could have a heating/cooling system that keeps the temperature at a comfortable 25 degrees celsius. However, suffering-happiness are conditions too and also should be maintained at an intermediate state between the extremes of abject suffering and ecstatic joy.
It's plain to see that abject suffering is anti-life; after all suicide which is generally due to extreme suffering is positively detrimental to life and I've heard of animals subjected to cruelty failing to thrive. However, there isn't much evidence for "extreme" happiness being a problem for existence, for life. Either there are no problems with being in perpetual bliss or there are but we're just not aware of them.
If there are no problems with being in an "extreme" state of happiness then happiness becomes an exception to the rule that it's preferable to exist in the Buddhist middle path or the Aristotelean golden mean. If the Buddha and Aristotle were correct, we should be trying to achieve a balance between suffering and happiness and not reject the former outright and devote all our efforts to the latter. However, this isn't what reality looks like; everyone's aim is to reduce suffering to zero and max out on happiness.
If we express all conditions for life as existing between extremes/limits and that there's a lower limit and an upper limit to all of them at which and beyond which life simply can't exist, then we must come to the inevitable conclusion that, "extreme" happiness is deletorious to life. In other words, heaven is a "bad" thing, just as hell is.
Then it must be that this world, sandwiched between hell and heaven, is the best of all possible worlds. It's midway between the extremes of suffering and happiness, just like life prefers it to be.
Reply to Wallows What the Trump, Putin, Xi, et al administrations show is that a rather large pile of crap is compatible with the best of all possible worlds formula. What we have here is the most improvable of worlds.
What the Trump, Putin, Xi, et al administrations show is that a rather large pile of crap is compatible with the best of all possible worlds formula. What we have here is the most improvable of worlds
As "proof" I refer you to the ubiquitous nature of paradise-hell concept in all cultures. Disregarding minor religions like nature worship, the dominant faiths in the 21st century all have a concept of heaven and hell with the prime directive to earn a ticket to the former and avoid the latter as far as possible.
Comments (71)
No, you are the one making a claim, its up to you to demonstrate why your claim is true or why we should accept that its true.
But, the claim is true.
You are claiming its true, you have to explain why.
Thats not an explanation, nor in any way demonstrative of your claim.
I suspect you know this...you bored or something I guess?
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one ought remain silent^.
Alright, well you’ve successfully wasted my time so kudos if that was your goal but we are done here.
No, I am just telling it as a fact.
Well...you may not be bored...but for certain you are not telling it as a fact.
You are asserting it...and you have that right. But unless there is some underlying motivation, you would be doing a bit more to substantiate it.
Just wondering what this drama is all about.
I am telling it as certain as being a solipsist.
Both.
Now you are just being silly.
Either explain yourself...or establish your assertion as a fact.
If you persist in asserting "it is so simply because I say it is so"...I just abandon the conversation, because it truly is not a conversation.
It is true you can't eat shit. In an other world, shit would taste good, and it would be nutritious.
Everything else being equal, that would be a better world.
And it is possible to imagine such a world where shit not only tastes good, but it's nutritious, too.
So that would be a better world, and it would be possible.
QED. I proved you wrong.
And it warn't hard at all to do it.
If the claim "This is the best of all possible worlds" were true, then you would not be questioning it. i.e. No one disputes the claim "Liquid water is wet". So the fact that you have raised the possibility itself indicates the dubitability of the claim.
If we're talking about existence, our future children's forms may already be known, especially in purer simulations where bodies are created differently.
Somewhere, there is a comprehensive view of species.
It's my guess that we're not so significant for our species but more our minds.
I'll let you rethink that a little.
Quoting Pantagruel
No, I would actually be propounding, and exalting it!
Consider: 'the one making the claim has the burden of proof' is a claim. So now you have to discharge the burden of proof. And no matter how you do it, you will have to make some more claims. And on and on it will go, without end. Thus, if 'the one making the claim has the burden of proof' is true, then nothing can be proved, including that claim.
The lesson: stop pronouncing confidently on matters you know nothing about.
I think this is the best world. But I am not sure what 'possible' adds.
Not if you deserve to eat nasty tasting shit. Then a world in which shit tasted good and was nutritious would be a world in which you do not get what you deserve, and thus it would be sub optimal.
It is conceivable that everything that happens is for the best. For what that would take is for this world to be as Reason wants it to be. And given that Reason is omnipotent, it is reasonable to suppose that this world 'is' exactly as Reason wants it to be. And thus reasonable to suppose that everything that happens in it, is ultimately for the best.
Blah-blah.
One where things could have happened differently.
So it is an actual world? Or just an imaginary one?
It can be both...
So I think it must mean 'imaginary'. But then the claim is that this is the best world imaginable.
However, most people think they can imagine somewhere better.
Perhaps, however, if they truly understood the nature of the world they are living in, they would realize that they could not imagine a better place.
But then that just amounts to saying that you can't imagine anywhere better once you understand that this world is the best.
But in that case we could just say that this world is maximally good or something. The addition of 'best of all possible worlds' seems to add nothing.
Yep, a perfect world, is one where nobody wants anything more, at which point everything then HAS TO become deterministic.
hmmm, seems super easy, or impossible, based on such limited information (I could give an answer that some may agree with, and others may claim it is not even evidence)...if you can answer this one, then I can easily answer yours:
I am the best of all possible people. Prove me wrong.
Quoting Wallows
I was worried that this was just a word game (a certain interpretations of definitions means that this is THE ONLY POSSIBLE world, so of course it is the best). Reminds me of christian apologists defining god as "the most perfect being" and of course a being that exists is more perfect than one that does not...so therefor god exists :roll:
Quoting Wallows
This is actually pretty interesting to consider. I can't come up with reasons why a world where nobody wants anything is necessarily more deterministic than a world where people want stuff??
Because if panpsychism is true, then nobody would want anything more than what they have. I know, it sounds like communism or some such; but, this is just a point of maxima convergence.
The world is maximally good. That doesn't mean everyone gets what they want. It depends what you want. Some things one ought not to want - some wants are bad to have. And some people - lots, no doubt - don't deserve to get what they want.
What were you trying to say, then?
I was then trying to figure out what 'you' might have meant by 'best possible world'. And it seems you have to mean that it is the best world imaginable.
But then that seems obviously false unless one adds to it that it is the best world imaginable once one understands that it is maximally good.
And that's equivalent just to saying that this world is maximally good.
But then you decided that this is equivalent to saying that everyone gets what they want, which is not something I said or believe.
So, the differences are superficial? A world where everyone gets what they want can only exist in an infinitesimally small timeframe; but, for that moment in time, the wavefunction won't collapse.
And now everyone wants more than they have. Wouldn't their "wants" be equally deterministic to the "lack of wants" in the other world? Heck, "wants" actually seem more deterministic?? I can directly see how their actions are determined by their wants...?
Nobody "wants" air. Does the abundance of air make our world more deterministic? If there was limited air would the world become less deterministic??
And I don't exactly see the connection to panpsychism...but that is probably because that has always felt like mumbo jumbo to me...so rocks, and space, and everything has consciousness?? I can't prove it wrong, but why anyone would put forward such a hypothesis is beyond me.
You must admit this too, for you think this is the best world and yet clearly many wants go frustrated in it.
I don't think the process can keep on going on forever unless there truly are no limits to wants. But, at that point it would be the same as saying that a universe where every want can be satisfied is tantamount to a perfect world, no?
See my response to ZhouBoTong
I was just responding to the deterministic aspect. Even in a world where every want is met, only the meeting of wants would be wholly deterministic. Unless we assume some crazy panpsychism, the majority of the universe would still operate under the same amount of determinism or lack there of as it currently does.
Also, for "no wants", I was thinking more of a Star Trek post scarcity situation. To say that "all wants are meant" means things like logic and reason and "A=A" no longer necessarily apply, as people will have all sorts of conflicting wants that are somehow met.
What do you mean?
Quoting Wallows
This is what started my responses. It says "everything then has to become deterministic". Surely not "everything"? All sorts of things happen all around the universe that have nothing to do with the "wants" of conscious beings. Picture our world 6 billion years ago, whether determinism hold true would be entirely separate from wants because there was no one around to "want". There are still many aspects of our world where there is no one around to "want".
But again, we have to place reasonable limits on "wants" or the whole thing is nonsense (the antinatalists' wants COULD NEVER coexist with those who want to reproduce...or what happens when I "want" the sun to be made of cheese? Infinite "worlds" would be popping in and out of existence constantly if all wants were suddenly fulfilled)
Got to run for the day...I will respond later if you find anything I am saying is worthy of discussion...I just realized, are you already thinking the world is almost entirely deterministic and our will is the last hiding place for an undetermined world? I am probably good with that. I was viewing things from "we don't know if the world is deterministic or not", and from that perspective, I don't see how infinitely fulfilled "wants" changes the whole, just one aspect.
Sorry, this is getting a bit vague, and I may need to use way more words, unfortunately, haha. Let me know where I am unclear, and I will try to improve it.
I don't necessarily disagree here but wonder what makes you say that that is not the case?
Quoting ZhouBoTong
More like the inverse.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Pertaining to any conscious entity I don't see why not.
It's not a very good drama. Boooooring,
In order for you to assert that "'this' is the best of all possible worlds" you presumably have knowledge about the rest of all possible worlds. How many possible worlds do you know of?
I think science supports the belief that this is the best of all possible worlds. Think of the teleological argument in its new form, intelligent design. A physical constant just digits different and life simply doesn't evolve. Note that by "life" I mean the familiar carbon-based life on earth and perhaps on other planets.
What's interesting is the qualification possible which implies the existence of constraints to, if this is being assumed here, god's creativity. Yet, we know that god is omnipotent and relatively simple organisms like us, possessed with a modicum of intelligence and imagination, can conceive of a better world e.g a disease-free, peaceful world. Surely, god could've done better. Perhaps god's omniscience gets in the way; god realizes that if humans are to possess free will, he'll have to allow some "imperfections" to creep into his creation. What of god's omnibenevolence? Does he not realize that being alive comes packaged with a great deal of suffering and may not be at all desirable? Could it be that god wants us to sort our own shit out.
Most importantly, whether a creator exists or not, this universe is fine-tuned for life and not humans. That would go a long way in explaining the many difficulties we and other organisms face - it's one life-form against another and no matter who wins, the house, life itself, wins.
Because if it is true then meeting the "wants" of conscious beings would only change a small fraction of the universe. It would change nothing in all aspects of the universe that are not touched by consciousness (our current knowledge would place everything but earth and the short reach beyond it by humanity as being unrelated to wants). But if we are already assuming the rest of the universe is 100% deterministic, then obviously this does not matter...but if the rest of the universe is only 99.9% deterministic, then it does (we don't need to debate the percent of determinism...if you think it is 100%, I am happy to agree).
Quoting Wallows
That makers no sense to me. I gave plenty of examples if you need to use something more tangible to prove your point.
Quoting Wallows
Fair enough. I have always FELT that the 100% determinist explanation made the most sense. But I have also gotten a strong sense from philosophy types that the question is far from settled...so I am hesitant to make assumptions in that regard.
On a side note (somewhat connected to your "More like the inverse" comment):
Does it make sense to you that a "world" where ALL wants are met is nonsense? It could not exist without destroying logical understanding. Even individuals have wants that conflict with THEIR OWN other wants...let alone differences between the wants of different people. Unless we play word games, no one can have their cake and eat it too, but in a world of infinitely granted wants, they would (and we can't even guess what that would look like...after they eat the cake do all its partially digested parts disappear from inside my body and re-integrate into the formed piece of cake in my hand? If it is not in my stomach, can I still say I ate it? It actually sounds like one type of determinism has gone out the window?)
The determinism is 99%...(9)
And there is no "center" of the universe, so what happens anywhere in it happens in other dimensions. I don't quite understand how they interact if the membrane theory is true.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
No, information isn't static. Retrograde-determinism might not apply...
I would prefer you engage with my examples/ideas. But maybe someday I will get to that. Thanks for the reference.
Please entertain them for me.
Thanks.
Yeah, it's all there, ehh. Free will? *Becomes violently existential*
Only this one.
Try statistics.
Have you ever learned some statistics? You can always arrive at some kind of approximation? Continuous/quantized?
Quoting Wallows
Did you consider the notions of hell and heaven? Both exist as concepts of worst and best case scenarios. That these concepts exist suggests to me that our common belief is that both the situation could've been worse (hell) and also better (heaven). I don't know on what basis one could then pronounce that this is the best of all possible worlds.
Actually if one really thinks of it carefully I think this actually is the best of all possible worlds for the simple reason that life, as we know it, generally thrives well between extremes of conditions: too cold or too hot, no life, etc. What of heaven then? It is after all an extreme of happiness. I guess heaven is a place where all opposite extremes, except happiness/joy cancel out: it isn't too hot and neither is it too cold, etc. Why is happiness/joy an exception to the rule that life prefers to exist in between extremes? There's a name for organisms preferring extreme conditions: extremophiles. Organisms that like extremely hot conditions are called thermophiles. Are we humans, extremophiles, the kind that prefers "extreme" happiness? The notion of heaven suggests that we are happiness-philes.
If we are extremophiles and it seems that I'm right since we seem to be on some "grand" quest for heaven (perpetual orgasmic state), then we're outliers, like all extremophiles are.
Given that, as I mentioned, life generally thrives in the middle, between extremes, it seems that, even if not wholly, at least partially, earth and maybe other planets, is/are the best of all possible worlds because not only are conditions just right for most life but it also has extreme environments for extremophiles (like us).
I wonder though if our conception of heaven is delusional because it seems that life can't tolerate extremes and if that's the case, would a state of eternal joy be desirable? Who's to say that an extreme state of joy wouldn't end up destroying us and all life? The Buddha and his middle-path begins to make a whole lot of sense.
I guess I'm saying that what we conceive of as a better world (heaven) may not be all that desirable; after all it fits the description of an extreme environment where everyone is in perpetual bliss.
Well, I can tell you it has the hallmarks of insanity all around it.
Quoting TheMadFool
Yes, it is delusional and should be recognized as such.
What about wanting to want. A goal. A purpose. Something to aim for.
If have everything I want, I have no motivation to do anything, which is by itself not moral or immoral, or good or bad; but it feels bad. Stagnancy. Stagrob. (Rob being Nancy's husband.)
________________
P.s. i realize this aspect of the topic has already been discussed after the post I responded to.
Well, can't an approximation be made for each and every individual? I think China is kinda doing that with a social credit system and I don't hear uproars over that.
Uhh, I think your own.
How so?
I'm not quite clear on the matter. Heaven is advertised as a place of perpetual bliss but I wonder if that's the truth or a misunderstanding of the concept. What I mean is that perpetual bliss can be achieved through maintaining all conditions within a desirable range: to use a temperature analogy, we could have a heating/cooling system that keeps the temperature at a comfortable 25 degrees celsius. However, suffering-happiness are conditions too and also should be maintained at an intermediate state between the extremes of abject suffering and ecstatic joy.
It's plain to see that abject suffering is anti-life; after all suicide which is generally due to extreme suffering is positively detrimental to life and I've heard of animals subjected to cruelty failing to thrive. However, there isn't much evidence for "extreme" happiness being a problem for existence, for life. Either there are no problems with being in perpetual bliss or there are but we're just not aware of them.
If there are no problems with being in an "extreme" state of happiness then happiness becomes an exception to the rule that it's preferable to exist in the Buddhist middle path or the Aristotelean golden mean. If the Buddha and Aristotle were correct, we should be trying to achieve a balance between suffering and happiness and not reject the former outright and devote all our efforts to the latter. However, this isn't what reality looks like; everyone's aim is to reduce suffering to zero and max out on happiness.
If we express all conditions for life as existing between extremes/limits and that there's a lower limit and an upper limit to all of them at which and beyond which life simply can't exist, then we must come to the inevitable conclusion that, "extreme" happiness is deletorious to life. In other words, heaven is a "bad" thing, just as hell is.
Then it must be that this world, sandwiched between hell and heaven, is the best of all possible worlds. It's midway between the extremes of suffering and happiness, just like life prefers it to be.
Are you sure about that?
That doesn't sound bad either...
As "proof" I refer you to the ubiquitous nature of paradise-hell concept in all cultures. Disregarding minor religions like nature worship, the dominant faiths in the 21st century all have a concept of heaven and hell with the prime directive to earn a ticket to the former and avoid the latter as far as possible.
Do you think I'm wrong? I'd like to know. Thanks.