Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Bruno Marchal writes: > > > > Le 12-déc.-06, à 11:16, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > Bruno Marchal writes (quoting Tom Caylor): > > > > > >>> In my view, your motivation is not large enough. I am also motivated > > >>> by a problem: the problem of evil. I don't think the real problem of > > >>> evil is solved or even really addressed with comp. This is because > > >>> comp cannot define evil correctly. I will try to explain this more. > > >> > > >> > > >> I agree that the problem of evil (and thus the equivalent problem of > > >> Good) is interesting. Of course it is not well addressed by the two > > >> current theories of everything: Loop gravity and String theory. With > > >> that respect the comp hyp can at least shed some light on it, and of > > >> course those "light" are of the platonic-plotinus type where the > > >> notion > > >> of goodness necessitates the notion of truth to begin with. I say more > > >> below. > > > > > > Surely you have to aknowledge that there is a fundamental difference > > > between matters of fact and matters of value. > > > > > > Yes. Sure. And although I think that science is a value by itself, I am > > not sure any scientific proposition can be used in judging those value. > > But then, I also believe that this last sentence can be proved in comp > > theories. > > > > > > > > > Science can tell us how to > > > make a nuclear bomb and the effects a nuclear explosion will have on > > > people > > > and the environment, but whether it is "good" or "bad" to use such a > > > weapon > > > is not an empirical question at all. > > > > > > Hmmm..... This is not entirely true. We can test pain killer on people, > > and we can see in scientific publication statements like "the drugs X > > seem to provide help to patient suffering from disease Y". > > Then it can be said that dropping a nuclear bomb on a city is bad for > > such or such reason, and that it can be "good" in preventing bigger use > > of nuclear weapon, etc. Again, we don't have too define good and bad > > for reasoning about it once we agree on some primitive proposition > > (that being rich and healthy is better than being poor and sick for > > example). > > OK, but the point is that the basic definition of "bad" is arbitrary.
That isn't "just true" > It might seem > that there would be some consensus, for example that torturing innocent people > is an example of "bad", but it is possible to assert without fear of logical > or > empirical contradiction that torturing innocent people is good. People don't want to be tortured. Isn't that empirical proof? > There are people > in the world who do in fact think there is nothing wrong with torture and > although > they are not very nice peopel, they are not as a result of having such a > belief deluded. I think they are. Can you prove they are not? > > Recall that even the (although very familiar) notion of natural numbers > > or integers cannot be defined unambiguously in science. Science asks us > > only to be clear on primitive principles so that we can share some > > reasoning on those undefinable entities. > > But there is a big difference between Pythagoras saying 17 is prime and > Pythagoras > saying that eating beans is bad. You can't say that "prime" and "bad" are > equivalent > in that they both need to be axiomatically defined. Badness can be axiomatically defined (treating people as means rather than ends, acting on a maxim you would not wish to be universal law, not doing as you would be done by, causaing unnecessary suffering). > > > You could say that "I believe blowing people up is bad" is a statement > > > of > > > empirical fact, either true or false depending on whether you are > > > accurately > > > reporting your belief. However, "blowing people up is bad" is a > > > completely > > > different kind of statement which no amount of empirical evidence has > > > any > > > bearing on. > > > > > > > > It really depends on the axioms of your theory. A theory of good and > > bad for a lobian machine can be based on the idea of 3-surviving or > > 1-surviving, etc. And then we can reason. > > Now I do agree with you that good and bad can probably not be defined > > intrinsically in a mathematical way. But a richer lobian machine can > > define some notion of self-referential correctness for a less rich > > lobian machine and then reason about it, and then lift the result in > > some interrogative way about herself. > > Some suicide phenomenon with animals could be explained in such a way. > > You have the Parfit book "reason and persons". There are many pieces of > > valid reasoning (and non normative) on ethical points in that book. > > Science can handle values and relation between values as far as it does > > not judge normatively those values. > > > > > If you survey a million people and all of them believe that "blowing > > > up people is bad", you have shown that "most people believe that > > > blowing up > > > people is bad", but you have not shown that "blowing up people is bad". > > > > > > Again this depends on your theory. If you have the naive theory that if > > a majority thinks that X is bad for them, then X is bad in the context > > of that majority, then this could be used to provide a counter-example > > (a bad one, but this does not change its point). > > I do agree with you that science, as such, cannot show that "blowing up > > people is bad". I believe that science cannot even define or name "bad" > > . It seems to me that "bad" and "good" are even more complex notions > > than "true" which is already beyond the scope of what science can > > express. We can build approximations, or accept some axioms if only to > > be enough clear so that we can be falsified and progress. > > The problem is that some people think "good" and "bad" are on a par with > descriptive terms that every sentient species, regardless of their psychology, > could agree on. They are not. Every sentient species would agree that a > nuclear bomb going off in your face will kill you, but some would say this was > good and others would say it was bad. Really? How likely is the universe to be populated by suicidal species? > > > If you find > > > a message from God stating that "blowing up people is bad" then you > > > have shown > > > that "God believes that blowing up people is bad (and perhaps will > > > send you to > > > hell if you do it)", but you have not shown that "blowing up people is > > > bad". > > > > > > Sure. Actually I cannot imagine a test showing that something is a > > message from a god ... And this completely independently that > > something *could* be a message of a god, and that some terrestrial > > creature could believe correctly (but then personally if comp is > > correct) that something is such a message. > > I think a message spelt out across the sky by stars simultaneously going > nova would probably do it for me. I would at least believe that these were > beings with godlike powers responsible, but would reserve judgement on > whether they had also created the universe. Can't shake of the skepticism > completely... > Stathis Papaioannou > _________________________________________________________________ > Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. > http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---