(09-11-2012 06:56 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:
(04-11-2012 11:57 AM)Vosur Wrote: Are you talking about the physicist? If so, can you give me a link to his arguments?
...because searching google requires a doctorate and shit...
I am not especially advocating this particular approach; I am merely
illustrating the way in which moral values might exist objectively by
playing a role in emergent explanations. If this approach did work,
then it would explain morality as a sort of 'emergent usefulness'.
It appears to me that he is doing the very same thing other peeps do when trying to argue for objective morality. He defines "morality", "morally good" and "morally bad" based on his subjective opinion and goes from there. I don't accept his premise.
And why is he talking about the properties of multiverses when there is zero evidence for their existence in the first place? He's speculating at best and talking out of his ass at worst.
Moral and aesthetic deliberations are also expressed in those
patterns, as are the outcomes of all such deliberations. Indeed,
whether or not there is an omega point, wherever there is knowledge
in the multiverse (complexity across many universes) there must also
be the physical traces of the moral and aesthetic reasoning that
determined what sort of problems the knowledge-creating entity chose
to solve there. In particular, before any piece of factual knowledge
can become similar across a swathe of universes, moral and aesthetic
judgements must already have been similar across those universes. It
follows that such judgements also contain objective knowledge in the
physical, multiverse sense. This justifies the use of
epistemological terminology such
as 'problem', 'solution', 'reasoning' and 'knowledge' in ethics and
aesthetics. Thus, if ethics and aesthetics are at all compatible
with the world-view advocated in this books, BEAUTY AND RIGHTNESS
MUST BE AS OBJECTIVE AS SCIENTIFIC AND MATHEMATICAL TRUTH. And they
must be created in analogous ways, through conjecture and rational