This is actually pretty interesting to consider. I can't come up with reasons why a world where nobody wants anything is necessarily more deterministic than a world where people want stuff?? — ZhouBoTong

Because if panpsychism is true, then nobody would want anything more than what they have. I know, it sounds like communism or some such; but, this is just a point of maxima convergence.

That isn't what I said at all.

The world is maximally good. That doesn't mean everyone gets what they want. It depends what you want. Some things one ought not to want - some wants are bad to have. And some people - lots, no doubt - don't deserve to get what they want.

That isn't what I said at all. — Bartricks

What were you trying to say, then?

I was not 'trying' to say something, I 'did' say that this world is maximally good.

I was then trying to figure out what 'you' might have meant by 'best possible world'. And it seems you have to mean that it is the best world imaginable.
But then that seems obviously false unless one adds to it that it is the best world imaginable once one understands that it is maximally good.

And that's equivalent just to saying that this world is maximally good.

But then you decided that this is equivalent to saying that everyone gets what they want, which is not something I said or believe.

So, the differences are superficial? A world where everyone gets what they want can only exist in an infinitesimally small timeframe; but, for that moment in time, the wavefunction won't collapse.

then nobody would want anything more than what they have. — Wallows

And now everyone wants more than they have. Wouldn't their "wants" be equally deterministic to the "lack of wants" in the other world? Heck, "wants" actually seem more deterministic?? I can directly see how their actions are determined by their wants...?

Nobody "wants" air. Does the abundance of air make our world more deterministic? If there was limited air would the world become less deterministic??

And I don't exactly see the connection to panpsychism...but that is probably because that has always felt like mumbo jumbo to me...so rocks, and space, and everything has consciousness?? I can't prove it wrong, but why anyone would put forward such a hypothesis is beyond me.

I do not know what you mean. I am talking at a conceptual level. Goodness and 'getting what you want' are not equivalent. Sometimes it is good to get what you want, sometimes it isn't. So 'good' and 'getting what I want' are not the same notion. And thus a maximally good world can also be one in which lots of wants are frustrated.

You must admit this too, for you think this is the best world and yet clearly many wants go frustrated in it.

And now everyone wants more than they have — ZhouBoTong

I don't think the process can keep on going on forever unless there truly are no limits to wants. But, at that point it would be the same as saying that a universe where every want can be satisfied is tantamount to a perfect world, no?

See my response to ZhouBoTong

See my responses to you.

I don't think the process can keep on going on forever unless there truly are no limits to wants. But, at that point it would be the same as saying that a universe where every want can be satisfied is tantamount to a perfect world, no? — Wallows

I was just responding to the deterministic aspect. Even in a world where every want is met, only the meeting of wants would be wholly deterministic. Unless we assume some crazy panpsychism, the majority of the universe would still operate under the same amount of determinism or lack there of as it currently does.

Also, for "no wants", I was thinking more of a Star Trek post scarcity situation. To say that "all wants are meant" means things like logic and reason and "A=A" no longer necessarily apply, as people will have all sorts of conflicting wants that are somehow met.

Even in a world where every want is met, only the meeting of wants would be wholly deterministic. — ZhouBoTong

What do you mean?

Even in a world where every want is met, only the meeting of wants would be wholly deterministic.
— ZhouBoTong

What do you mean? — Wallows

Yep, a perfect world, is one where nobody wants anything more, at which point everything then HAS TO become deterministic. — Wallows

This is what started my responses. It says "everything then has to become deterministic". Surely not "everything"? All sorts of things happen all around the universe that have nothing to do with the "wants" of conscious beings. Picture our world 6 billion years ago, whether determinism hold true would be entirely separate from wants because there was no one around to "want". There are still many aspects of our world where there is no one around to "want".

But again, we have to place reasonable limits on "wants" or the whole thing is nonsense (the antinatalists' wants COULD NEVER coexist with those who want to reproduce...or what happens when I "want" the sun to be made of cheese? Infinite "worlds" would be popping in and out of existence constantly if all wants were suddenly fulfilled)

Got to run for the day...I will respond later if you find anything I am saying is worthy of discussion...I just realized, are you already thinking the world is almost entirely deterministic and our will is the last hiding place for an undetermined world? I am probably good with that. I was viewing things from "we don't know if the world is deterministic or not", and from that perspective, I don't see how infinitely fulfilled "wants" changes the whole, just one aspect.

Sorry, this is getting a bit vague, and I may need to use way more words, unfortunately, haha. Let me know where I am unclear, and I will try to improve it.

All sorts of things happen all around the universe that have nothing to do with the "wants" of conscious beings. — ZhouBoTong

I don't necessarily disagree here but wonder what makes you say that that is not the case?

Infinite "worlds" would be popping in and out of existence constantly if all wants were suddenly fulfilled) — ZhouBoTong

More like the inverse.

I just realized, are you already thinking the world is almost entirely deterministic and our will is the last hiding place for an undetermined world? — ZhouBoTong

Pertaining to any conscious entity I don't see why not.

Just wondering what this drama is all about. — Frank Apisa

It's not a very good drama. Boooooring,

In order for you to assert that "'this' is the best of all possible worlds" you presumably have knowledge about the rest of all possible worlds. How many possible worlds do you know of?

Prove me wrong — Wallows

I think science supports the belief that this is the best of all possible worlds. Think of the teleological argument in its new form, intelligent design. A physical constant just digits different and life simply doesn't evolve. Note that by "life" I mean the familiar carbon-based life on earth and perhaps on other planets.

What's interesting is the qualification possible which implies the existence of constraints to, if this is being assumed here, god's creativity. Yet, we know that god is omnipotent and relatively simple organisms like us, possessed with a modicum of intelligence and imagination, can conceive of a better world e.g a disease-free, peaceful world. Surely, god could've done better. Perhaps god's omniscience gets in the way; god realizes that if humans are to possess free will, he'll have to allow some "imperfections" to creep into his creation. What of god's omnibenevolence? Does he not realize that being alive comes packaged with a great deal of suffering and may not be at all desirable? Could it be that god wants us to sort our own shit out.

Most importantly, whether a creator exists or not, this universe is fine-tuned for life and not humans. That would go a long way in explaining the many difficulties we and other organisms face - it's one life-form against another and no matter who wins, the house, life itself, wins.

All sorts of things happen all around the universe that have nothing to do with the "wants" of conscious beings.
— ZhouBoTong

I don't necessarily disagree here but wonder what makes you say that that is not the case? — Wallows

Because if it is true then meeting the "wants" of conscious beings would only change a small fraction of the universe. It would change nothing in all aspects of the universe that are not touched by consciousness (our current knowledge would place everything but earth and the short reach beyond it by humanity as being unrelated to wants). But if we are already assuming the rest of the universe is 100% deterministic, then obviously this does not matter...but if the rest of the universe is only 99.9% deterministic, then it does (we don't need to debate the percent of determinism...if you think it is 100%, I am happy to agree).

Infinite "worlds" would be popping in and out of existence constantly if all wants were suddenly fulfilled)
— ZhouBoTong

More like the inverse. — Wallows

That makers no sense to me. I gave plenty of examples if you need to use something more tangible to prove your point.

I just realized, are you already thinking the world is almost entirely deterministic and our will is the last hiding place for an undetermined world?
— ZhouBoTong

Pertaining to any conscious entity I don't see why not. — Wallows

Fair enough. I have always FELT that the 100% determinist explanation made the most sense. But I have also gotten a strong sense from philosophy types that the question is far from settled...so I am hesitant to make assumptions in that regard.

On a side note (somewhat connected to your "More like the inverse" comment):

Does it make sense to you that a "world" where ALL wants are met is nonsense? It could not exist without destroying logical understanding. Even individuals have wants that conflict with THEIR OWN other wants...let alone differences between the wants of different people. Unless we play word games, no one can have their cake and eat it too, but in a world of infinitely granted wants, they would (and we can't even guess what that would look like...after they eat the cake do all its partially digested parts disappear from inside my body and re-integrate into the formed piece of cake in my hand? If it is not in my stomach, can I still say I ate it? It actually sounds like one type of determinism has gone out the window?)

Because if it is true then meeting the "wants" of conscious beings would only change a small fraction of the universe. It would change nothing in all aspects of the universe that are not touched by consciousness (our current knowledge would place everything but earth and the short reach beyond it by humanity as being unrelated to wants). But if we are already assuming the rest of the universe is 100% deterministic, then obviously this does not matter...but if the rest of the universe is only 99.9% deterministic, then it does (we don't need to debate the percent of determinism...if you think it is 100%, I am happy to agree). — ZhouBoTong

The determinism is 99%...(9)

And there is no "center" of the universe, so what happens anywhere in it happens in other dimensions. I don't quite understand how they interact if the membrane theory is true.

Does it make sense to you that a "world" where ALL wants are met is nonsense? It could not exist without destroying logical understanding. Even individuals have wants that conflict with THEIR OWN other wants...let alone differences between the wants of different people. Unless we play word games, no one can have their cake and eat it too, but in a world of infinitely granted wants, they would (and we can't even guess what that would look like...after they eat the cake do all its partially digested parts disappear from inside my body and re-integrate into the formed piece of cake in my hand? If it is not in my stomach, can I still say I ate it? It actually sounds like one type of determinism has gone out the window?) — ZhouBoTong

No, information isn't static. Retrograde-determinism might not apply...

Spinoza helps ground things if you need reorientation.

Spinoza helps ground things if you need reorientation. — Wallows

I would prefer you engage with my examples/ideas. But maybe someday I will get to that. Thanks for the reference.

I would prefer you engage with my examples/ideas. — ZhouBoTong

Please entertain them for me.

Thanks.

Every human being can imagine a better world. It seems that God cannot.

Every human being can imagine [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0VTHLa_SgE[/url]. It seems that God cannot. — David Mo

Yeah, it's all there, ehh. Free will? *Becomes violently existential*

In order for you to assert that "'this' is the best of all possible worlds" you presumably have knowledge about the rest of all possible worlds. How many possible worlds do you know of? — Bitter Crank

Only this one.

“Best” depends on a subjective judgement so maybe it is the best possible world for you. Not for me though.

“Best” depends on a subjective judgement so maybe it is the best possible world for you. Not for me though. — khaled

Try statistics.

?

? — khaled

Have you ever learned some statistics? You can always arrive at some kind of approximation? Continuous/quantized?

In order for you to assert that "'this' is the best of all possible worlds" you presumably have knowledge about the rest of all possible worlds. How many possible worlds do you know of? — Bitter Crank

Only this one. — Wallows

Did you consider the notions of hell and heaven? Both exist as concepts of worst and best case scenarios. That these concepts exist suggests to me that our common belief is that both the situation could've been worse (hell) and also better (heaven). I don't know on what basis one could then pronounce that this is the best of all possible worlds.

Actually if one really thinks of it carefully I think this actually is the best of all possible worlds for the simple reason that life, as we know it, generally thrives well between extremes of conditions: too cold or too hot, no life, etc. What of heaven then? It is after all an extreme of happiness. I guess heaven is a place where all opposite extremes, except happiness/joy cancel out: it isn't too hot and neither is it too cold, etc. Why is happiness/joy an exception to the rule that life prefers to exist in between extremes? There's a name for organisms preferring extreme conditions: extremophiles. Organisms that like extremely hot conditions are called thermophiles. Are we humans, extremophiles, the kind that prefers "extreme" happiness? The notion of heaven suggests that we are happiness-philes.

If we are extremophiles and it seems that I'm right since we seem to be on some "grand" quest for heaven (perpetual orgasmic state), then we're outliers, like all extremophiles are.

Given that, as I mentioned, life generally thrives in the middle, between extremes, it seems that, even if not wholly, at least partially, earth and maybe other planets, is/are the best of all possible worlds because not only are conditions just right for most life but it also has extreme environments for extremophiles (like us).

I wonder though if our conception of heaven is delusional because it seems that life can't tolerate extremes and if that's the case, would a state of eternal joy be desirable? Who's to say that an extreme state of joy wouldn't end up destroying us and all life? The Buddha and his middle-path begins to make a whole lot of sense.

I guess I'm saying that what we conceive of as a better world (heaven) may not be all that desirable; after all it fits the description of an extreme environment where everyone is in perpetual bliss.

Actually if one really thinks of it carefully I think this actually is the best of all possible worlds for the simple reason that life, as we know it, generally thrives well between extremes of conditions: too cold or too hot, no life, etc. What of heaven then? It is after all an extreme of happiness. I guess heaven is a place where all opposite extremes, except happiness/joy cancel out: it isn't too hot and neither is it too cold, etc. Why is happiness/joy an exception to the rule that life prefers to exist in between extremes? There's a name for organisms preferring extreme conditions: extremophiles. Organisms that like extremely hot conditions are called thermophiles. Are we humans, extremophiles, the kind that prefers "extreme" happiness? The notion of heaven suggests that we are happiness-philes. — TheMadFool

Well, I can tell you it has the hallmarks of insanity all around it.

I wonder though if our conception of heaven is delusional because it seems that life can't tolerate extremes and if that's the case, would a state of eternal joy be desirable? Who's to say that an extreme state of joy wouldn't end up destroying us and all life? The Buddha and his middle-path begins to make a whole lot of sense.

I guess I'm saying that what we conceive of as a better world (heaven) may not be all that desirable; after all it fits the description of an extreme environment where everyone is in perpetual bliss. — TheMadFool

Yes, it is delusional and should be recognized as such.