From: Mindaugas Indriunas (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Oct 19 2010 - 12:10:40 MDT
On Oct 6, 2010, at 03:59:57 MDT, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Please define "good" and especially "objectively good"
I have been thinking about this question for quite a while, and I came up
with my own 'definition' of what good means:
Good is to let every thing exist. Since non-existence can be classified as a
kind of "thing", this definition is all inclusive and all exclusive at the
same time, i.e., purports the existence of seemingly contradicting or
seemingly incompatible things simultaneously, which I believe can not be
achieved, but can be pursued.
I think good defined in this way can be pursued, in a sense that it is
possible to choose such actions that bring us closer to the state
"everything exists". For example, by consciously choosing a form of free
market economy it seems we can increase the number of different kind of
products that exist (as compared to most forms of planned economy), and get
closer to the ideal of "everything exists".
In the future, it could potentially be possible to create supercomputers
connectable to human brain, and simulating your desired world of choice,
effectively pushing the world even closer to this definition of 'objective
good', because this would seem to let exist even more kinds of different
P.S., I'll try to write more details about the particular open source
resource planning system which I envision (and already started using) in
separate e-mail later.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:05 MDT