• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

TThe math of the imagination of good and evil:

quarky

Banned
Q
Joined
Oct 15, 2007
Messages
20,121
I'm really pushing it this time, posting this in the Sciency forum.
Mods, I will take no offense should you move this to the proper sub-forum.

Here's the idea:

Imagine the worst possible scenario you can imagine.
It's pretty bad, right?
Perhaps an intensely grizzly torture, involving your nails being removed as you were forced to watch the decapitation of all your loved ones?
It can always get worse than that.

If nothing else, we can add the impact of 1/2 the population going through the same evil, at the same time...with the other half being the sadists.

If you expand upon the concept, one is nearly forced to envision a cosmos dedicated to maximum hellishness of existence...which, oddly, isn't difficult.

Theology might even come into play, with various gods eternally crucified; vomiting; having bad diarrhea, which lands on the faces of the saints, and so on.
In such scenarios of ultimate bad, total annihilation is not in the cards. Too easy; not enough bad.

Now, try the same with ultimate goodness.
It's very similar; fractal; and leads to the same place.

Hence, evil may be good.

And that could be bad.
 
quarky said:
Now, try the same with ultimate goodness.
It's very similar; fractal; and leads to the same place.
Click to expand...

Trying the same with "ultimate goodness" certainly doesn't lead to envisioning "a cosmos dedicated to maximum hellishness of existence". Quite the opposite. Consequently, it leads to a very different place.
 
quarky said:
Describe it, please.
Click to expand...


A universe of ultimate evil would maximize despair and suffering, and minimize contentment and happiness.

A universe of ultimate good would minimize despair and suffering, and maximize contentment and happiness.

Clearly these positions are diametrically opposed, and the conclusion that "evil might be good" is unwarranted.
 
Last edited:
Brian-M said:
A universe of ultimate evil would maximize despair and suffering, and minimize contentment and happiness.

A universe of ultimate good would minimize despair and suffering, and maximize contentment and happiness.

Clearly these positions are diametrically opposed, and the conclusion that "evil might be good" is unwarranted.
Click to expand...

You haven't dug deep enough into ultimate good.
Perhaps endless life?
No crime?

No death?

Death is the cross-road of evil and good.
 
quarky said:
You haven't dug deep enough into ultimate good.
Perhaps endless life?
No crime?

No death?

Death is the cross-road of evil and good.
Click to expand...

I haven't delved into detail because I can't see any plausible way that any universe describable as either ultimate good or ultimate evil could come to being.

Perhaps you explain how you came to conclude that they both lead to the same place?

And if death is the cross-road of evil and good.... which side of death does each universe appear on? Would that mean that the universe of ultimate evil is the one without death, or the universe of ultimate good?

I'd argue that death itself is neutral, neither good nor evil, and can be either beneficial or detrimental to ultimate good or ultimate evil depending on how it is applied.
 
quarky said:
You haven't dug deep enough into ultimate good.
Perhaps endless life?
No crime?

No death?

Death is the cross-road of evil and good.
Click to expand...

Death is an outcome; one of many that could arise from your hypothesising.

Good and evil are mental constructs. If an ultimately evil person is themselves subject to ultimate evil, is that good, or is that just?
 
quarky said:
Now, try the same with ultimate goodness.
It's very similar; fractal; and leads to the same place.

Hence, evil may be good.

And that could be bad.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a problem that falls out of consideration of the Euthyphro Dilemma ("Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?") and the biblical God.

If you reject the first horn because you need God to be the absolute moral arbiter, then 'good' becomes arbitrary, meaningless, and circularly defined - something is good because God says so; God commands according to his nature, and God's nature is good...

This may be acceptable if you don't think to much about it, and don't read about the God of the bible, who's nature and acts of violence and spite often seem to contradict what we intuitively feel is moral or good - and we are made in the image of God. But if you accept the God of the bible, and decide that what is good is what God commands, but not necessarily what God does, then either God's actions are not always good and so don't always accord with God's nature, or we must accept that God's nature is not always good. Either way seems unsatisfactory for an absolute moral arbiter in who's image we are made.

Hence evil may be good (because God commands it or God does it). Or something...
 
Last edited:
Stunningly, the mods haven't moved this thread to an appropriate sub-forum.
Never sure if they're asleep on the wheel, or if the subject matter lacks a sub-forum of its design.

So, let me science it up a notch:

The element 'gold', and its weird history and carnage and political finagles.

Gold is a very use full element. Malleable; corrosion resistance; has a cool look; etc.

Most of it that 'we' have, is not used at all.
The next most used form is pointless jewelery.

Yet, the effort involved; the suffering; the corruption...What is it about this element?

Is it good, or evil? It caused banks to happen, for protection. Then, the element became merely symbolic, and was shuffled back and forth, at Fort Knox, between rooms.
Later, the symbolism became even more abstract.

What is it about heavy metals?
Platinum; Uranium, and finally, synthesized Plutonium.

Is value contingent upon the atomic weight?
Correlations could be made.

Cost of an electron?
A proton?

The most expensive matter we've ever 'almost' seen, are the trans-uranium elements...now too numerous to even care about...yet, extraordinarily expensive.

Plutonium is a classic point in the good and evil math.
Carbon free power, or political annihilation?
 
We could put a monetary value on protons and electrons.
Neutrons would be more like lawyers.
CO2 emissions, though far few electrons per molecule than, say, Mercury, are emitted in far greater quantities, and some fairness of value could be set on a single electron (evil) and a single proton(Good).

Or negative and positive.
Doesn't much matter.

2nd law, and such.

Hope to discuss this notion with much smarter folks that inhabit these realms, before it's sent to abandon all hope, or worse.

introspectively yours,

quarky
 
Mods, I knew you had to do this.
Too bad you had o do it when you did it.

My concept of putting a value on an electron, as an underlying, universal unit of value, was pretty hot, in my own twisted imagination.

Here, in R&P, the idea will die the usual death.

My ideas deserve the attention of science geeks.
I used to be one.

Color me saddened, but not quite dead.
 
quarky said:
I'm really pushing it this time, posting this in the Sciency forum.
Mods, I will take no offense should you move this to the proper sub-forum.

Here's the idea:

Imagine the worst possible scenario you can imagine.
It's pretty bad, right?
Perhaps an intensely grizzly torture, involving your nails being removed as you were forced to watch the decapitation of all your loved ones?
It can always get worse than that.

If nothing else, we can add the impact of 1/2 the population going through the same evil, at the same time...with the other half being the sadists.

If you expand upon the concept, one is nearly forced to envision a cosmos dedicated to maximum hellishness of existence...which, oddly, isn't difficult.

Theology might even come into play, with various gods eternally crucified; vomiting; having bad diarrhea, which lands on the faces of the saints, and so on.
In such scenarios of ultimate bad, total annihilation is not in the cards. Too easy; not enough bad.

Now, try the same with ultimate goodness.
It's very similar; fractal; and leads to the same place.

Hence, evil may be good.

And that could be bad.
Click to expand...

Cleaning up your attic and tripped over the Leibniz, did we?
 
quarky said:
Gold is a very use full element. Malleable; corrosion resistance; has a cool look; etc.
Click to expand...
Actually, gold isn't terribly useful at all. It's too soft to do much with, which is why people originally started using it for money (useful metals were more valuable as weapons, tools, or armor). That's also why it's used so much in jewelry--for most of history that was all gold was good for, other than currency. Today gold is also useful in electronics, but that's about it. If you want to talk about useful metals you should look at steel, aluminum, or copper.
 
Akri said:
Actually, gold isn't terribly useful at all. It's too soft to do much with, which is why people originally started using it for money (useful metals were more valuable as weapons, tools, or armor). That's also why it's used so much in jewelry--for most of history that was all gold was good for, other than currency. Today gold is also useful in electronics, but that's about it. If you want to talk about useful metals you should look at steel, aluminum, or copper.
Click to expand...

Want to trade copper for gold?
 
quarky said:
Want to trade copper for gold?
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that because the market price of gold is higher, gold must be more useful?

And I'd rather have the copper--works better for the jewelry I make.
 
Gold makes fabulous roofing metal.

The weak link in my hypothesis of an electron based economy, is lead.
Useful, yes. But cheap and abundant...and it has lots of electrons.

Helium, as well...very valuable, yet not much in the way of electrons.

Maybe I'll dig up Herman Daly's steady state economics theory.
In it, money was linked to in-coming solar radiation.
Not a bad idea, imho.
 
quarky said:
Gold makes fabulous roofing metal.

The weak link in my hypothesis of an electron based economy, is lead.
Useful, yes. But cheap and abundant...and it has lots of electrons.

Helium, as well...very valuable, yet not much in the way of electrons.

Maybe I'll dig up Herman Daly's steady state economics theory.
In it, money was linked to in-coming solar radiation.
Not a bad idea, imho.
Click to expand...

...clue...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom