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

[Humakty]

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 ?

[thejeff]

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.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by thejeff

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.

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!)

[thejeff]

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.

[LumenPlacidum]

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.

[Illuminated One]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

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.

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.

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.

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?

Heck, physics taught me i can put words to lots of things I can't actually envision, and those are *real*.

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

[Squirrelloid]

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)

[Fantomen]

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.