John 3

The following is a post of mine from another site. Look it over and tell me what you think.
****************************************

(To make the discussion easier, suppose the universe is discrete—space is a three dimensional network of nodes that constitute all of space, matter, and forces.)

For any given system there is a goal. Religions will have beliefs, goals, and methodologies to reach those goals. The most common Multi Agent System (MAS) architecture, the BDI model, is a type of software designed to simulate beliefs (knowledge base), desires (goals or desired end-state), and intentions (methodologies and sub-goals to reach the main goal).

One could view biological cells as autonomous agents because they have DNA describing their physical makeup and proteins they may need to use. The DNA will have main and auxiliary methodologies for reaching the main goal. And that main goal is the evolution of a strand of information. The body that the DNA strand constitutes would appear to act on self-serving principals while it only serves the propagation of the information it carries. The body’s strength, energy, and vitality are only host to the DNA.

With organisms that have nervous systems, the dimension of “beliefs” is greatly expanded (in real-time evolution rather than over multiple lifetimes) and thus it has more methodologies.

So if the universe was discrete and everything could be described in terms of information, then computers with the correct physics math and enough computational power could simulate any particular physical phenomenon.

If an agent in a discrete system must reach a discrete goal, then there are a discrete amount of different methodologies for that agent to reach that goal. From this it would follow that, of the finite set of discrete methodologies, one or more will be a discrete optimum methodology and one or more will be a discrete least-conduce methodology.

Therefore, in this discrete system, we can say with absoluteness that there is an optimum methodology. However, it doesn’t take the envisioned computer to figure out what the optimum methodologies are for mankind. They’re obvious and they have been described extensively (though not perfectly) by many religions.

(If the universe was not discrete but continuous, the same results are achievable as long as the math is accurate enough.)

So it’s easy to see that there are optimum methodologies but now all we have to do is actually “believe” that there is a goal.

Longbow

I have at least three problems with this.

1) For one thing, I don't think that what is optimal is obvious. People have tried many times to engineer society in one way or another and failed miserably. It is not just a simple matter to cause outcomes like that. And I don't think that it has anything to do with the continuity or discreteness of things. Either way, it is a complex world with lots of variables that we cannot account for.

2) I don't think that "optimal" is even well-defined. So, even if we could figure out how to make things happen the way we want them to, it is still not clear what would really be in our collective best self-interests or what that means.

3) "What is optimal for mankind" is one view of what is entailed by morality. In fact, it is a view I don't agree with. ADiscussing all the reasons I don't agree with it would be a rather lengthy discussion, but one big one is that it doesn't exactly address normal moral dilemmas. Instead it is only possibly applicable if one stretches and construes it to apply to simple conflicts that happen merely between two people under any circumstances rather than a person and something as lofty as all of makind. In other words, all immoral acts have to be some sort of act against humanity on such a view. And, even if you don't spin it that way, the fact that you have to try hard to relate it back to normal disputes that happen between just two people and not a person and all of mankind is problematic.

John 3

All I am doing here is arguing against relative morality. If the universe is discrete, then absolutes are derivable. Simple as that.

As a matter of survival, we have to cooperate. You do it with thousands of people on the highways everyday--putting your life in there hands. Its a matter of trust and honesty. All you can do is hope that people will believe that these social norms are, in fact, what they should be doing. But under the relativistic doctrine, nothing is inherently wrong.

What if one could replace their faith in these norms with actual knowledge of the norms? And state them as facts? Dont lie, dont hurt, be trustworthy, have compassion, cooperate, communicate, grow, diversify, unify, learn, teach.

These are methodologies that one could test in an MAS simulation. One could test the above attributes on a simulation of an ant population and know with absoluteness which ones are necessary for survival; and optimal--the method that most quickly and efficiently achieves the goal of the ants.

Well, in a hundred, maybe two hundred years (if we make it that far), we will be able to simulate populations of humans. And Im willing to bet that a cooperative society is absolutely superior to an uncooperative one.

Dreamer_87

Hello everyone,

That statement immediately reminded me of Plato's 'Republic'; his argument was that if a whole society were to be 'immoral' - ie that every one of its members would have all the qualities and perform all the actions that we associate with immorality, like selfishness, theft, murder (which is defined, I believe, as taking life when there is no proper justification so far as the society's standards are concerned) -then it would self-destruct and become unable to operate efficiently because cooperation would be non-existant.

I don't really understand your first argument, but I agree with your explanation and the idea that what is acceptable and what isn't should be judged by how the society (and ultimately mankind and all living things) would be affected.

For example, let's take the quality of selfishness (which I define as placing your interests above the interests of others); the 'extreme' form of selfishness (placing your goals and your desires and interests above all else in *all* matters and circumstances) is counter-productive, because we as social animals depend on interaction for our very survival; if there is no 'give and take', if there are no compromises, then the society would be in shambles which would lessen the chances of the individual's survival.

Best regards,
Dreamer

John M3

"if there is no 'give and take', if there are no compromises, then the society would be in shambles which would lessen the chances of the individual's survival." Dreamer_87

I agree. But dont you think its obvious that existence is about more than just survival?

I think it that apparent that objects at the higher level of evolution have a higher ability to evolve. Brains evolve faster than chromosomes. Societies evolve on a magintude we can only partly comprehend. Now computers are evolving and we are using them to create algorithms that optimally evolve raw information itself (without the chains our fleshly biology).

So the good of humanity, in my oppinion, is not just the survival of it--but the progression of it.