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

[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... =)

[Illuminated One]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

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.

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).

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...)

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?).

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

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'?

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

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.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by Illuminated One

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.

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.

[Humakty]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

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.

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"

[Omnirizon]

Originally Posted by Humakty

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"

Heidegger's sous rature...

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

[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.