OT: but Mr. Architect, why can't you make a perfect world?

[Illuminated One]

Originally Posted by Illuminated One

Ok, lets cut right to the chase. You keep using these value judgements. These are weasel words because they don't actually mean the same thing to you as to me. As such, they make your discussion fairly contentless.

'Good' and 'bad' are ambiguous terms. If we define a perfect world in terms of +good and -bad, of course we can't have a perfect world because no one agrees what these are. In many cases, one agent's idea of good is inimical to another agents - and i don't even need to specify the agents are people, merely entities capable of initiating action and holding values (however basic, like survival).

Just a short answer.
Could you name one sensation that you find good and one you find bad?
Then you do understand my sentence. And of course I don't mean everyone should experience things that I find good but things that he finds good.
It has been quite popular to say statements are meaningless especially those that don't come down to scientific terms.
But then do we really mean the same thing by "red" or "photons" or "wavelength"?

That there can be conflict between value-holders, yes in this world. But a world can be conceived in which there isn't. This world would have to sacrifice one thing or another, though, and I can't take a stand on that before I have thought it through.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by Illuminated One

That there can be conflict between value-holders, yes in this world. But a world can be conceived in which there isn't. This world would have to sacrifice one thing or another, though, and I can't take a stand on that before I have thought it through.

Really? I'm not sure I believe that.

So, restricting myself to conflict that arises due to competition for 'goods' (things one values), its immediately apparent that if there are any physical 'goods', then either a perfect world must have an infinite supply of them or there will be competition for them. Further, that supply must be uncountably infinite, because population will escape towards infinity when unconstrained by resources.

Alternately, a perfect world must have no physical goods.

Since 'survival' is a fairly universal value, and survival mandates things like 'eating' and 'drinking' (because of the laws of thermodynamics, among other things), then we know there will be physical goods.

I would propose that uncountably infinite resources is ridiculous. And that even with uncountably infinitely many of them there will still be differences in the efficiency by which one acquires them, specialization, trade, competition between rivals in the same 'business', etc..., leading to conflict between value holders despite there being enough for everyone *eventually*. Postulating an infinite resource world where resources can be acquired with infinite efficiency is patently absurd (not that having to assume infinite resources isn't also so).

The other alternative is a world where there are no physical 'goods'. Of course, since survival requires physical 'goods', this means everyone is dead. Of course, once everyone is dead, no agent need conflict over values.

Ok, i think i've identified the perfect world. Its this whole life thing that causes the problems. =p