Who is the enemy?
What is moral? What is not moral?
What is morality in the context of the MWI?
Is Quantum Suicide moral?
Let me propose a conjecture and let us see how far we can go with it:
"Morality is the creation, protection and preservation of information.
Immorality is the destruction of information."
In classical religious terms this fits pretty well with the Ten
Commandments. Lying, killing, bearing false witness destroys
information. Adultery messes up social order (information). Honoring
parents, protect and preserves their wisdom and honors them as creator
(of information). Meta Commandments include observing the Sabbath which
honors creation itself and the first three Commandments which honor the
Creator (of world information).
As an aside, let me say that in the modern context the destruction of
the environment is immoral because it results in a decrease in
biodeversity (world information). Conversely, work that generates
information is very moral. I like to think that engineers are very moral
individuals (I am one :-)) because they create new thing that do not
exist in nature. But if you really think about it, any work that
generates a desirable service or product of benefit to society is in
fact adding information to the world and is therefore moral.
In response to Spudboy, we could define murder as killing that results
in the destruction of information. Killing that results in the creation,
preservation or protection of information is not murder. For example, A
lion killing an antelope does so to survive. This action preserves
biodiversity, allows the lions to continue as a specie and shapes the
evolution of lions and antelopes (faster running, better senses of
hearing, sights etc...) In short this action is necessary for the
creation (evolution) of the fauna.
The Taliban destruction of the statues of Buddah, on the other hand was
evil because its aim was to reduce cultural diversity in Afghanistan.
The Holocaust was evil because its aim was to reduce ethnic diversity in
the world. The terrorist action of the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon was evil because its aim was to eliminate a way of life.
The Taliban operate within a very inflexible system. Bruno would call it
G. Our system on the other hand is much more flexible and adaptable.
Because our way of life allows a continuous adaptation we cannot be
described as a G. -- WE ARE THE TRUE REVOLUTIONARIES! Clearly we present
a threat to the terrorists: OUR WAY OF LIFE SHOWS THAT THEIR G IS
INCONSISTENT! In an evil attempt to restore their consistency, they
attempt to eliminate our way of life. They won't succeed. We shall
adapt. The world will end up better with more information.
Now, how does this conjecture fits with the MWI?
The Plenitude contains zero information. No matter what you do, the
total amount of information will not change. For example, performing a
good action, merely means that you allow your consciousness NAVIGATES
the plenitude to a world where you have performed a good action. Other
branching to counterfactual "bad action worlds" also exist but YOU have
not NAVIGATED there. Other you's (Yoush) have navigated there. As you
can see, making decision in the plenitude can be reduced to the concept
of NAVIGATION. You choose a branch, but yoush choose all branches.
Thus the ABSOLUTE information of the world does not change NO MATTER
WHAT YOU DO!
It seems therefore that just like everything else in our world (all
physical entities) the only type of morality that matters is morality as
seen by the first person. We now enter the realm of first person and
third person perception and relativity.
To go any further I must now define the concept of objective world in
relative terms. Objective worlds are worlds which share frames of
reference "close enough" to the first person world as to be
indistinguishable from it. First and third person perceptions are
identical when the third persons live in such objective worlds. First
and third person perceptions differ (as in Quantum Suicide QS or FIN)
when the frames of reference are too far apart.
I would like to make a distinction between absolute morality and
objective morality. As I explained above absolute morality does not
exist - absolute information remains at zero no matter what. Objective
morality on the other hand does because objective worlds do exist.
Objective information can change.
Thus insofar as there are objective worlds, there is objective morality.
Destroying a specie or a person to reduce diversity in the world is
objectively immoral.
QS or FIN however does not fall within the scope of objective morality
because, in this case, the first and third person worlds are very
significantly different. The only type of morality that applies is first
person morality. It appears that the action of QTI or FIN actually
creates first person information! Since I believe that measure does not
change with QS it appears that QS or FIN is actually moral! This is a
disturbing but IMO an inescapable conclusion!!!
George
Marchal wrote:
>
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
>
> >Bruno, what did you expect? You should expect Jacques to be a typical
> >American.
>
> The everything list is not a random sample. Unfortunately!
> Because frankly I appreciate the Americans here.
> I find them very sympa.
>
> >You know how Americans on opposite sides of an issue tend to
> >behave.
>
> The champion of biased arguments has been an European!
> Note also that Jacques Mallah has never been dishonest. I am
> just afraid by its lack of doubt on some fundamental questions.
> I keep asking, because I have no prejudice.
>
> >E.g. recounting of votes in Florida,
>
> This is a triumph of democracy ('course, it's not a triumph of
> organisation). In my opinion they should perhaps recount again.
> Especially now.
> It is good USA have a lot of allies but then you must listen to
> them, and reassure them. Expression like "crusade", "infinite
> justice" etc. are diplomatical errors. Worst: they are
> strategical errors. Why?
> (with comp they are of course G* error: never pretend the
> good is on your side, especially when it is obvious).
>
> >pro life versus pro choice...
>
> And Death Penalty! God told them "Thou shall not kill", and the
> state himself shows the exemple of killing. Shocking. You got a
> point.
> But I know there is a lot of Americans shocked by that too.
>
> >Unthinkable here in Europe!
>
> Be careful. I'm afraid it is thinkable here in Europe. Perhaps
> your country is very open minded, but I am afraid by the last
> election in Italy. Even in part of Belgium some election have
> given frightful results. Extremism is not dead in our countries.
>
> >Anyway, there is nothing wrong with Jacques, he is behaving
> >in a way you should expect from the MWI or your theory.
>
> I don't know. I'm troubled by its persistence to negate the
> distinction between first and third person point of view. But
> you should not put him so quickly in a box.
>
> Of course you raise the question "are the enemies the americans?".
> Of course no. You know that americans are the victims here.
> Still you can ask are *some* americans, and more generaly
> some occidentals, responsible?
>
> Of course. Islam has begun a secularisation process, with a
> begining of separation of "state and church", but this has been
> stopped by the Wahabit (Saoudian) with the help of the occidentals.
> So that the fanatical islamic schools have been favorised and
> are still now favorised, by the occident (who have justify this
> by the cold war with the (ex) Soviet Union, but also by the need
> of petrol).
> But why to continue after the fall of Berlin wall? I don't
> understand.
> Other questions: when did USA stop supporting the
> Taliban? (After the Buddha destruction? after the 11 sept. ?)
>
> Apparently unrelated, but I'm afraid it is perhaps *the*
> central question:
> Why is hemp forbidden in most countries? (One century of lies and
> propaganda). The international Petrol/Health politics is criminal
> since a long time.
>
> You can compare the relation between Occident and Middle East
> with the relation between the heroin-addict and its dealer.
> I'm afraid the real hard dope on this planet could be petrol.
>
> Half-jokingly when Bush administration decides not to respect
> the Kyoto protocol (signed by almost all countries in the world),
> I told my friends that this was a declaration of war against the
> whole planet!
>
> The concrete enemy, I am afraid, is international banditism.
> We should depenalize all the dopes, if only to control black
> money. Violence is of no use in this war. Its use will always
> increase it and make it turn back. They are real technical
> international problem which must be solved the most
> pacificaly possible.
>
> If Georges Bush drops bombs on Afghanistan, there is a risk he
> will be obliged to drop Bombs on Pakistan, then on Saoudians, then
> ... on Americans, who are the real protector of what happens
> to be the roots of the hate of the occidental tolerance.
> Let us hope GB will not fall in this diabolical trap.
>
> USA and the whole occident should profit on being victim for doing
> serious inquest in the whole world.
>
> The fanatics are dangerous. The cynics who help them in the
> shadow, are much more dangerous. And they are, in part, among us,
> as it is more and more obvious days after days.
> Nothing will be simple in this "war". But please, in this
> conflict the enemy is widespread in all countries. If you say it
> is the Afghans, the Americans, the Occidentals, the Muslims,
> etc. you will always miss the point.
>
> Bruno
Received on Sat Sep 22 2001 - 00:24:10 PDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST