From: Thomas Buckner (tcbevolver@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Dec 19 2004 - 10:13:54 MST
--- Jeff Medina <analyticphilosophy@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Further, the argument from evil (*) has a clear
> analogue in this
> situation. Given the amount of suffering in our
> world, some may find
> it implausible our sim-creators could have any
> concern for our
> well-being.
>
> (*) argues that if there is a God, It is not
> notably benevolent,
> because a benevolent deity would've created a
> world with less
> suffering than ours has. For more details, see
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/ &
>
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nicholas_tattersall/evil.html
>
Sure, but what if a world with less suffering is
logically impossible, because it cannot run
without lots of complicated interactions which
will inevitably disadvantage some of its
denizens? What if the deal is "accept X suffering
to get Y joy because no stable system can create
Y without a certain amount of X"?
I call this the lobster dinner problem. Let's say
you have just proposed to your significant other
over a delicious lobster dinner in a lovely
restaurant overlooking the ocean, washed your
food down whith the best champagne, kissed
passionately, etc., etc. It's a very good day,
yes?
Not for the lobsters.
Can a stable world exist which is all proposal
dinners and no lobster deaths?
Tom Buckner
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 21 2006 - 04:22:50 MST