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

...We tried that Neo, you all died.

just as the Architect tells Neo in the sequel to the Matrix, NetLogo models predict that in a perfect world, everything dies.

* go to: http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/
* download NetLogo
* click on 'File' then 'Models Library'
* open the 'Biology' folder
* choose the 'Wolf-Sheep Predation' model
* set grass growth time to 0 (ie. infinite resources).
* run.
* everything dies.

basically, with infinite resources, the wolf population reaches a critical mass such that wolves are able to eat sheep faster than sheep can reproduce, and once all the sheep are dead the wolves die. Only the grass grows on.

Even with sheep reproduction rate at max, and wolf reproduction rate at minimum, this happens; it just takes longer. This is because there is never hunger to kill off excess wolves, and so they just continue to populate until they can eat sheep quicker than sheep can breed.

Ironically, it is limits on sheep's resources that saves their own lives.

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

A perfect world has no wolves.

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

that wouldn't be a perfect world for wolves then :P

also, there get to be so many sheep that the time it takes the computer to process all the sheep will approach infinity, reflecting what happens whenever anything can reproduce unchecked: it gets really croweded, and that's no fun for anyone.

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

No seriously, you can't define a "perfect world" as one with only unlimited grass growth etc.

If you are going at the Gnostic/Theodizee (how can god exist&be good&be allmighty when there is suffering?), which the Matrix is imo about (I mean is there a difference if reality is governed by lines of code or freaky physical laws? The core seems to be the feeling that the world is run by a unconcerned or even malevolent power)

The perfect world is where no suffering exists. So there are no predators, diseases or whatever that might cause a sheep to feel bad, probably it wouldn't even need grass so sheep can't get hungry. (*)
You can argue that such a world can not exist since suffering is a necessity of life and this is the best world possible. But I seriously doubt that this world would fall apart if it was only slightly better (like for example I hadn't stubbed my toe just now). Anyone who wants to solve the Theodizee should prove that this world couldn't exist were it not for my pain.


(*) This world has to be designed from the goal of course. Every problem that might there be with unlimited sheep or whatever has to be treated as a problem already solved by the architect.
It's just an hypothetical idea after all

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

Silly Omni. If it were really an infinite amount of sheep, having an infinite amount of wolves would mean absolutely nothing. Yay for theoretical math!:D

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

yest but they are countably infinite, and since with infinite resources there is no way for wolves to die (from hunger of lack of sheep), only sheep can die (by being eaten by wolves). so eventually, wolf population will reach the critical mass needed to kill sheep quicker than they can breed.

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

But would not wolves eventually die infinitely due to old age? Even if this were not the case, how can something possibly be countably infinite, when infinite is by definition uncountable? :)

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

In other words, it's not the real world, then. :)

Obvious issues:

If sheep become sufficiently scarce, wolves have trouble finding them. Consequently, wolves will end up hungry: firstly they'll end up fighting other wolves for hunting territory and effectively cull themselves, or as they starve become unable to chase sheep effectively and die anyway.

Furthermore, you have to imagine population migration. Imagine a two-province island. The wolves eat all the sheep in one province, and either starve or move to the other sector. Either way, that sector becomes wolf-free. Surviving sheep from the second sector migrate into the wolf-free sector and flourish, and when the wolves realise the sheep are back in the sector they cleared out, they move back in, and so they go back and forth.

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

I dream of a perfect world of grass. And for grass.

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

Clever sheep would not set their reproduction rate to max, they would also set their own growth time to zero. Then you get infinite grass, infinite sheep, and a whole lot of happy wolves.

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

Clever sheep != sheep

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

This ignores the well documented self culling that goes on in unsustainable animal populations.

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

The only species that does multiply beyond limit are humans?

Which proves that clever sheep are the most advanced species on this planet. They are just to clever to show it.

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

Beyond limit?

The history of warfare begs to differ, cullings do happen every now and then.

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

We definitely self cull.

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

That isn't true. At least according to my theoretical math class many years ago.

Series go to infinity with different speeds and thus have different sizes.

Infinity / Infinity can be any answer you want - depending on the series involved.

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

That's a series tending to infinity. He's talking infinite sheep. Doesn't have a size.

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

The take away point of this thread is that the word "Cull" is definitely fun to use.

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

Well, the growing series is apparent in the simulation and the examples everyone else used...

If the series is changing the change is quantifiable; and series do indeed have size.

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

I was thinking that too, but I think the function has a probability component, so each sheep or wolf has a probability to reproduce or to eat or be eaten. If that was the case, the function would not be a set limited by possible arguments, because any given argument could lead to different outcomes (infinite number in fact, just that most are highly unlikely).

therefore, we can't say that the series has a known size, only that each possible set of arguments has a distribution of outcomes. I guess we could have a series of known distributions...


I think so, yes. :)

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

Ofcourse, in a place of infinite resources, there would exist neither sheep nor wolves, only grass. There'd be no impetus for life to evolve into predatory forms, even herbivorous ones.

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

One could expect some kind of infinite pandemia to clean up all this bloody mess. Then Grass would rule. For. EVER !

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

Until the great grass plague.

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

Then...plague shall inherit the Earth?

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

Unless someone wants to define what they mean by 'a perfect world', the proposition automatically fails because its undefined. 'perfect' is basically contentless. So the claim 'the world isn't perfect' only really contains the information 'I don't like the world'.

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

the world is perfect when everything is in perfect order

http://higherbalance.files.wordpress...pg?w=300&h=300

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

to quote whitman..

"and the grass covers all"...

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

@Squirrelloid

I disagree about that. I like people and things that are not perfect.
The good parts/traits/days are worth the bad ones => I like it.
Perfect => bad parts don't exists and there are no parts missing.
This should be definition enough.


edit: Haha, Omniziron you have a very different definition of perfect (which is circular by the way ... but your pic is too so maybe that's intended?)
But I have to add No part is in the wrong place (time, relation, whatever).

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

Warning! Logic Fail!

claim '!Perfect' =/=> !Like

My claim was:
Only !Like => claim '!Perfect'

I did state them in the opposite order, but that's clearly my intended causality. But we start out knowing the consequent (that someone has claimed the world isn't perfect) and are trying to derive meaning from that statement (ie, by trying to figure out why it was claimed in the first place). Someone who likes the world isn't going to claim its not perfect, regardless of their beliefs on perfection.

So if you *like* it because its not perfect, you're wholly not covered by my reasoning.

---------
This is not an acceptable definition.

What do you mean by 'there are no parts missing'? What parts could be/are missing from reality?

What do you mean by 'bad parts don't exist'? Bad to whom and for what?

I mean, there are clearly no 'parts missing', because reality is reality. Its exactly what it is. (Law of identity) What could we possibly mean by 'parts missing'? But not only do you ask for 'no parts missing', you also ask for 'bad parts to not exist'. =><=!!! If some parts don't exist, then they'd be missing, wouldn't they? (whatever that means...)

Would you like to try again, and define perfection in a way that doesn't use value judgements or contradicts itself?

--------

Omniziron:
Is your claim then that reality is not perfect because it contains sets which are not well-orderable?

You realize one cannot have a perfect circle in a world which contained nothing but orderable sets... =)

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

Only !Like => claim '!Perfect'
I.e. I will only claim something isn't perfect if I don't like it?

This assumption then is generally wrong. And I did challenge that with my statement (even if it does indeed serve also against a counterexample against the first one). Since by saying "I like people and things that are not perfect" I also claim they are not perfect.
That isn't saying that I like them because they are not perfect but despite their flaws which I am aware of (or which I believe them to have).

I thought that this would arise. By no parts are missing I mean of course no good parts are missing. No one misses bad parts (or maybe we do?).

Concerning the world, I'd first shortcut it. I personally don't know if there is such a thing as the "world" or what reality is. But I know that I (whatever I is) am experiencing. Let's call the sum of my experiences my life and let's for simplicities sake just assume that there are other people who are also having a life of their own without proof (and let's say that is these lives happen in the world).
Now some of these experiences are good (pleasant, joyful, meaningful, whatever) some are bad (...).
So in a perfect world everyone would have all the good experiences that could be had and not a single bad one. I'm not saying that this would be consistent. But I'm saying that this is a far better description of a perfect life/world than anything that doesn't use value judgements - because that sort of misses the point.

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.

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

Well, if I imagine a perfect world, I can't represent myself, nor any other human, in it, because we are imperfect, so we would, by our mere presence, render this perfect world less perfect. And as perfection is an absolute, less means not perfect at all. Were's my coke ?

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

This discussion started with the assumption of infinitely quickly growing grass. I assumed from that the laws of physics were up for grabs.

If you're saying that you can't have perfection under our existing physical laws, then sure, I agree. And if you want humans in it, then it certainly won't be perfect.

But much of the discussion has been over whether such a perfect world is even conceptually possible. Whether the concept has meaning. That discussion doesn't need to be constrained by physical realities.

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

You're on a dangerous slippery slope. What do you keep as essential and what is ok to eject? I mean, thermodynamics is a pretty fundamental aspect of physics to just decide it shouldn't apply, effecting things like chemical reactions and therefore digestion, cell division, neuron signalling, etc...

But even if we assume we can eject thermodynamics (...), do we have to keep E+M? Strong and weak nuclear forces? What's essential to even having a cogent discussion? I'd argue ditching Thermodynamics is well past the point beyond which discussion ceases to make any sense.

And we can't just ignore physical realities. Proving its physically impossible for a perfect world to exist makes the concept meaningless, and actually inconceivable.

It would strike me that you'd just allow people to make arbitrary claims without any consequences, which leads to the worst sorts of discussions because nothing can be concluded. "Oh no, i didn't mean it like that, its a special type of Foo that doesn't have all the problems normally associated with Foo." "And how does one get specialFoo? What are the consequences of specialFoo instead of normal Foo?" "We don't have to worry about that, i just declare it to be so."

I'd argue that anything which disregards fundamental laws of nature is going to be unable to truly be conceived, because whatever 'laws' it obeys will have unforeseen corellaries that won't be able to be enumerated, and will be so alien from our experience as to be meaningless. Just because you can put a word to it doesn't mean you can actually imagine it. Heck, physics taught me i can put words to lots of things I can't actually envision, and those are *real*. (Curse you tensors!)

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

Great, then ditch the idea of infinite resources. Because that's just as much a violation of physical law as anything else you've suggested. Especially if you're requiring those infinite resources be things that we would recognize as food, that is plants and animals.

So we essentially agree that a perfect world violates the known laws of our physical universe? No need to keep arguing that it would be tricky to get to the infinite resources that can't exist?

The philosophical discussion of whether perfection can even be defined other than in subjective terms, such as good and bad, can be an interesting one if it isn't sidetracked by arguments about the physical nature of such a world.

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

Consider if the sheep graze in an infinite meadow and grass always grows quickly enough to sustain the sheep, no matter how many sheep there are.

Assume that this means that there is no limitation of resources, but that sheep need some definite amount of space to survive (i.e. you cannot have a living sheep that has been crushed down to be smaller than some given space)

With no limitation of resources, populations grow on the order of an exponential function.

Consider that a sheep has a maximum speed at which it can run. Assuming that sheep constantly run outwards from the initial pair of sheep at top speed from the instant they're born, they will achieve a maximum radius that grows linearly over time. So, the area of sheep-coverage grows according to the square of time passed.

Note that the number of sheep is in fact growing faster than the area covered by the sheep, because O(a^n)>O(n^2). This means that as time progresses, the sheep become denser and denser, even though they're running as fast as they can to claim more of this infinite meadow. Or, as time progresses, the amount of space per sheep approaches zero.

Thus, your sheep will die even without predators since their own breeding will compress them beyond the limitations of what they can survive.

Result? Sheep-paved road. The softest ride you'll ever have.

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

A good point.
Of course you are meaning that we wouldn't exist in such a world, but it is not a question of life it's a question of consciuosness.
What you do have to prove is that conscious existence is impossible without life and physical goods.
Still there are other possibilities, say Solipsism. The world is exactly like what it is (or more exactly what I believe it is) only that everyone except me is a biological robot without sentience that are programmed to act exactly like they do. I couldn't tell the difference and I couldn't hurt anyone. I'm not saying this is going towards the perfect world but towards a world in which it is impossible for agents to hurt each other - and as I said there would be sacrifices.

Nah, the worst kinds of discussion are those in which positions are forbidden arbitrarily in order to get to a conclusion.
Of course you can point out consequences like "whatever 'laws' it obeys will have unforeseen corellaries that won't be able to be enumerated, and will be so alien from our experience" but then it is your tasks to prove that before it is a meaningful argument and not an arbitrary claim in itself. Another set of laws will have unforeseen consequences? For sure.
Every possible set of laws will have unforeseen consequences which are exactly the way you need them for your argument? Wait, you have gone through them all? Or have you foreseen it?

And hence your argument about the inconceivability of physical impossibilities falters. Since physical reality itself is inconceivable by the standards you have to demand.

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

Doesn't Solipsism => there is no possibility of agent conflicts, because there is only one agent? So by your definition, a solipsist does live in a perfect world?

(would cover more, but limited in time, maybe later)

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

If we ignore the human perspective, and thus lose the human trait of subjective evaluation, the world is already perfect.

A world with humans can´t be perfect, a world without humans can´t embrace the concept of perfection.