From: pdugan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Dec 24 2005 - 19:36:33 MST
>===== Original Message From Phillip Huggan <email@example.com> =====
>Yep, either there aren't any or they are evil. I really doubt advanced
civilizations are plentiful enough to admit the latter scenario. But if there
are Powers out there, I'm curiouis what other purpose they would construct for
their lives other than doing good deeds. What do you mean by respect for
heterogeneaity? Do you mean a way to assuage boredom?
I'm conceptualizing a multiversal core which is essentially chaotic,
producing universes according to an evolutionary model, that is blind but
theoretically unlimited optimization, versus intelligently designed universes
which could self-regulate and minimalize evil, but are finite in number by the
definition of design. Granted, such a system would have to be designed itself,
so its possible that we live in such a multiverse where "evil" is minimalized,
even if the potential number of universes is unlimited. There are different
kinds of infinities, an infinite number of universes does not imply an
infinite number of heavens or hells. But say there are an infinite number of
collapsed universes, an infinite number of universes incapable of complex
chemistry, life, ect. A Type VII civilization responsible for the sea of being
isn't nessecarily going to take responsibility for colonizing and re-designing
every dead universe, or for intervening with civilizations like ours, the same
goes for a Type VI society of Powers capable of multiversal travel. This goes
for an infinite multiverse, in a finite multiverse the ethics would be
different, but I don't think its that simple.
By analogy, I'm not concerned with curbing the AIDS epidemic or ending
world hunger, I'm concerned with promoting a friendly singularity, because the
latter encompasses the former. Likewise, a Type VII civ wouldn't be concerned
with helping a single universe when there are potentially infinite universes
just like ours, it would be a futile effort. Instead, such a civilization's
concerns would be better suited with the overall integrity of the system,
which being evolutionary, is heterogeneous.
> I've already suggested a way this can be enacted without succombing to evil.
The default flow of causality is a >meaningless concept if you can control
causality. What else does that leave?
Theres a Christian saying (its Christmas eve after all) "the lord works in
mysterious ways." Its really a very infuriating proverb, since its often used
to salve all sorts of seemingly arbitrary horrors, but I think it applies
> Our philosophy is actually quite advanced.
Really? We may have thorough epistemological frameworks appropriate for our
brains in our physical situations, but a philosophy appropriate for the brains
of a Power or beyond in the context of an infinite multiversal system would be
a horse of an altogether different color, don't you think?
> It isn't fair to shortchange humans by suggesting there is some ethics we
couldn't possibly understand. This >is hypothesizing epistimological
self-actualization, not brain surgery.
True, many a war and atrocity has been justified by that suggestion, and
I'm basically jusifying all the suffering of the whole history of the universe
by that suggestion. Brain surgery might not mean self-actualization, which is
basically a looped notion anyway, but changes to the brain, say the
nuerochemical shifts brought on by psychedelic drug use, can affect one's
worldview in interesting ways, so the same probably applies to more radical
forms of brain adjustment. I'd suggest that if there are Powers out there,
they're certianly beyond "good" and "evil", and if they were of a moral
persuasion easily identifiable by humans, then the universe would be very
different and probably a lot less interesting.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 21 2013 - 04:00:49 MDT