A Transgender Atheist Army For The Antichrist

A Transgender Atheist Army For The Antichrist Nov 30, 2020 4:05:13 GMT

Quote

Post by gw on Nov 30, 2020 4:05:13 GMT

Nov 30, 2020 1:13:36 GMT moviemouth said:

Nov 30, 2020 0:12:49 GMT gw said:

It's a little bit complicated. Freedom of choice is real in a way because you can clearly steer yourself to do something new even if it is all predetermined. There are, of course, choices that we make without deliberating very much but I'm thinking more of the ones where we do. I didn't mean to make it sound deep but I have a very formal way of talking. My idea is basically the philosophical equivalent of a goldilocks zone. The first thing I meant was that if it were necessary to always have a perfect choice then our reality wouldn't exist. The reason I was referring to the 'material' reality and not the 'social' one is that all of our social predicaments are a reflection of the underlying material reality.

If you want to see where I'm coming from when I say that if it weren't for imperfect choices then our reality wouldn't exist, read Stanislaw Lem's Golem XIV story. Our whole human and animal existence is a chemical response to the overabundance of oxygen created as waste by photosynthesizing bacteria. if we lived in a more just ecosystem we would get our energy from the sun and our bodies would be made from minerals gotten directly from the soil. Our whole existence is a result of life evolving to adapt to the limitations set by previous life on Earth which evolved without the intellect to shape the earth's ecosystem on the whole . I don't know if there is another actual reality where things work out easier than ours but I need to make a comparison to something. All I wanted to say is that IF there is a more orderly existence without tough choices like between preserving wildlife's habitat or mining metals from a mountain, that we would either be forced to choose only an ideal choice or we would choose between equally fine choices such as picking between life on one of two different identical star systems which have different geographies but both support life and no matter which place you chose to live you'd be happy all the time and live an equally long time. Can I say for certain that such a thing is somehow 'wrong'? No, only that from a perspective of choice that it seems rather boring because there's either a right way to do something and thus an ideal state of being that one can only disobey or there's no significant choices to be made at all and thus that our reality being so non-ideal makes it more appealing to live in in a certain dis-attached ironic way because it gives our life a character that only imperfection can.

There was something else I wanted to say but it slipped my mind and this seems to cover it about as well as I can manage. When I said "many possible worlds to live in" take it like this: There would only be a universe where everything worked out fine and we wouldn't exist, and just about everything we know wouldn't either.

Okay, I read it over again.

Is all you are saying is that the way reality is in this universe makes it more interesting than if we lived in a non-existent "perfect" world? And that if the world had came about in a different way, then this reality wouldn't exist? I would agree with that obviously.

What would a perfect world even be? If we lived in this imaginary world wouldn't even know it was boring or that we were missing anything? It might be impossible that a world like that could even exist.

Am I glad we don't live in a world like that? Yes, but only because it sounds very boring from the perception of someone living in a non-perfect world.

If this is what you are talking about then you wrote it out way more complicated than it needed to be.

You got most of it. As for the 'perfect world' I don't know for sure whether it exists or not. I do know, or at least assume through observation, that by the standards of perfection that we live a very imperfect world. If there is a multiverse with universes of varying degrees of perfection then we'd likely not be anywhere near the top. If we assume that there is a multiverse then if one were to take out the imperfect ones then most of the possibilities would not exist. And yes, the choices one could make would be very limiting to us because there's not any alternatives to an ideal choice or that there's multiple choices but each one is essentially meaningless in a way. That would be also because we need imperfection but in limited amounts, just enough so that we don't need to worry about failure to be perfect since complete perfection is unachievable so we needn't strive for it, but also varied degrees of imperfection so that one choice is better than the alternative and we thus have a reason to make the best decision we can.

A perfect universe would be like the town in the movie Interstate 60 where there's a drug that makes you blissfully happy but you just end up craving the drug and don't have the freedom to feel happy as a result of good choices. I'm having trouble expressing an important thought but I'll give it a try: There is an importance of choice that exists due to the complexity of the outcomes due to compromise in a less than ideal universe, and that lack of ideality gives us a purpose beyond mere abstraction by giving us a sort of sensory and conscious quality that allows us a perspective that a more perfect one needn't have. I'm not sure that I phrased that well enough, and I suspect that it may be a very flawed idea even if phrased correctly.