Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent Meeker writes (quoting SP):
There are several differences between the axioms of ethics and aesthetics
on
the one hand and those of logic, mathematics and science on the other. One
is
that you can bet that any sentient species would arrive at exactly
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
Le 13-déc.-06, à 02:01, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
OK, but the point is that the basic definition of bad is arbitrary.
Perhaps, but honestly I am not sure. In acomp, we can define a (very
platonist) notion of bad. The simpler and stronger one is just the
falsity f. Then Bf, BBf, BBBf,
Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.
I disagree. Mainly for
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.
Le 12-déc.-06, à 03:58, 1Z a écrit :
1Z wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 12-déc.-06, à 03:58, 1Z a écrit :
1Z wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
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
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 12-déc.-06, à 03:58, 1Z a écrit :
1Z wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
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
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.
Le 12-déc.-06, à 13:02, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 12-déc.-06, à 03:58, 1Z a écrit :
1Z wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
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
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
Bruno Marchal writes:
I don't see how it's such a big problem. Consciousness exists,
therefore feelings exist,
and some of these feelings are unpleasant ones. Explaining
consciousness is difficult,
but once granted, you don't need an extra theory for every different
type of
Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.
!!
1Z wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.
!!
To expand a bit, both of these
101 - 114 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
