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

[Omnirizon]

...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.

[Illuminated One]

A perfect world has no wolves.

[Illuminated One]

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

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by Illuminated One

Anyone who wants to solve the Theodizee should prove that this world couldn't exist were it not for my pain.

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'.

[Omnirizon]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

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'.

the world is perfect when everything is in perfect order

[chrispedersen]

to quote whitman..

"and the grass covers all"...

[Illuminated One]

@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).

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by Illuminated One

@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.

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.

---------

Perfect => bad parts don't exists and there are no parts missing.
This should be definition enough.

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... =)

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

So the claim 'the world isn't perfect' only really contains the information 'I don't like the world'.

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

[Omnirizon]

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.