Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 14,698
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Oh it absolutely makes sense. It makes sense when one realizes that what constitutes a "natural law" is "a law natural to the regular and deterministic function of a system".The concept of "supernatural" itself does not make sense, except as what it is: a genre of fiction. "Supernatural" means a story about a pretend world that doesn't work like the real world, one with a Harry Potter flavor instead of a Star Trek flavor. But a story about the real world not working like the real world does not make sense. "Natural law was violated" is self-contradictory nonsense -- it's just another way to say "Something happened that doesn't happen." When we observed violations of Newton's Law of Gravity, that didn't tell us we were in a supernatural world; it told us Newton was wrong.So, not that I know all that many Christians or Narcissists in general that have the wherewithal to play a game with a learning curve that seems more like climbing a around a horizontal protrusion, but...This is a big part of my thought process as well, but with a twist.
For me, the fractal moral wrongness of it creates an inability to believe.
It does not make sense that such evil is supernatural. ... I am unable to imagine any divine being that would do that.
... It makes perfect sense that an Idi Amin, or a Pol Pot or a Stalin or a Torquemeda… or an Abraham or a Moses or Mohammed or a Jesus… would invent such a backstory. That makes perfect sense. ... It’s exactly what a malignant narcissist would write.
Well, it proves out the idea that such evil can be supernatural DOES make sense.
Somewhere on my hard drive there is a simulated universe where four kids got smashed out of existence under a lowering drawbridge because they were taking too much processing power to calculate their activities and preventing further immigration. ...
Lots of systems have a function of natural law that can be violated by disruption of the nature of that system.
We just also have this set of laws that we call "fundamental" which we have not observed any systemic basis for the operation thereof, nor violations thereof. They have been apparently perfect.
But this does not mean they must be.
As with the dwarves, there's no way for us to know for certain we were created or not, and like those future AI dwarves who will be playing Pascal's wager against me, it pays to just do what's right for each other and to actually give a shit.
All we can do is do what any wise entity would do in that situation and assume nothing on that front of whether there must or must not be more, and operate instead on the basis of things we can justify at least temporary assumptions of: our material world and the observations we make within it.