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

I would postulate that the world would seem imperfect to us, because it was not designed for us. Like a cockroach living under a sink might complain about the damp, we exist in an environment that made us but which is not tailored to all the requirements and wants we have.

This is not to say that I do not like the world, but merely that it's imperfections mean that I must exert effort in order to maintain my existence.

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

One interesting point is that, would the world be perfect, we wouldn't notice it, as it would seem quite ordinary to people living in it.

Imagination being the only thing limitless, the average human would surely find stuff to add or retrieve from it. Plus a human tends to want what he doesn't have, which brings perfection into being an endless change. (perfection always seem to be the next step forward, but when you reach it, it's again the next step...etc)

The conclusion is that maybe we do live in a perfect world, and don't give a damn about it !

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

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).

Consider the simplistic example at the start. What's the perfect world for the sheep? How about the wolves? Are these anywhere close to the same thing?

As soon as you use 'good' and 'bad', you've already answered the question why a perfect world is impossible. You're defining perfection for you, not for anyone else. As such, the question becomes meaningless.

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

Sometimes you have to use inappropriate words to describe something, for the simple reason appropriate words don't exist. And those particular word can't exist because no one is even barely able to imagine what is perfection. But you can try and point me to somethng flawless...

"Perfection is not of this world"

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

Heidegger's sous rature...

*deep breath*
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHG GGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!

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

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.

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

This sandwich isn't perfect, but I like it.

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

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

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

Of course, if you're contemplating a theoretical perfect world, there is no reason to assume things like the laws of thermodynamics will apply.

You're trying to assume infinite space and infinite stuff, while still holding onto real world economies and population dynamics.

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

Thermodynamics would apply in any possible world.

More generally, unless you plan on presenting a fully self-consistent alternate physics to demonstrate these other rules of physics are even *possible*, its far safer to assume that a physics fairly similar to our own is required. You can't just toss physics out and say 'we can imagine arbitrary stuff'. No you can't - matter has to hold together, etc...

Finally, for this to even be meaningful, we have to assume a world where something sort of like humans could live (my tongue-in-cheek 'a perfect world is where everyone is dead' aside), because what's the point in imagining a perfect world if you can't imagine yourself into it?

Infinite stuff: I said the only situation in which it would be even possible for competition to not arise would be infinite stuff. And then of course there's the time component. No matter how infinite the stuff is, you don't have access to infinite amounts of it *right now*. Thus, competition centers on efficiency rather than access. Its still competition. Assuming infinite stuff with infinite access violates quite a few things, chat up a Computer Scientist about sorting algorithms, runtime, and the like.

Exponential population growth is true by definition. That's how breeding works mathematically. It doesn't require any assumptions except that parent(s) give birth to offspring.