Yeah it's similar! What makes that bridge of reasoning "hard"?
Point of my example is that this moral framework can consistently judge what is "evil". Striving for "good" is a matter of accumulating complexity (or technocapital?), the end justifying the means. Competitors and natural cataclysms set the stage; adapt or die.
-
-
This puts morality on non-relativistic grounds. In a sense, "god" is the force of natural selection - the final judge, the wages of sin being death.
-
Complexity/technocapital is then a virtue and the only way to beat the planet's time-limit. Onto the next challenge, requiring more complexity.
-
The main flaw I see is defining "complexity". Apparently it's challenging to define rigorously (is it systematic? meta-systematic? mathematical? physical?), and even if we could, there's a subjectivity flaw: how can we know that humans are capable of judging universal complexity?
-
Ultimately it's functional. Players can only model approximately what works. It's like in chess: some moves are better than others but only victory is definitively "good".
-
I'm no game theorist, but isn't chess a finite game, while "the universe" is an infinite game, so the metaphor kinda explodes, unless you think about maybe a game of chess with so many pieces that you'll die before you can finish playing.
-
You can extend the analogy: life has to succeed at increasingly complex forms of game, analogous to tic-tac-toe, to chess to StarCraft2 and so on. The forms are virtually infinite. So "good" is matter of optimizing strategies for all games.
-
The first subatomic particle soup killed all the unstable forms but the survivors became molecules, then life. Lifeforms were selected for relentlessly to produce humans. Humans will die if they aren't complex enough for the next stage. It's consistent framework for good and evil
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.