Philosophy Project Part 5
Constructing a non-anthropocentric value-system, Part 5: Consequences
If all entities/patterns are unique then they all add to the diversity of existence, i.e. they are all "good", they all have inherent value in themselves. Pebbles and human beings, ideas and teacups, galaxies and slime moulds.
But do all patterns add to diversity equally? One one level, simply looking at a snapshot of the universe and counting the number of identifiable patterns in it, the answer seems to be yes? If the entity represents the fundamental unit of existence then all entities are equal in value, adding to diversity in the same way: 1 + 1 + 1...
Translated into actions, the immediate consequence of this seems to be that the destruction of an entity, any entity, will always be a bad thing, in terms of the founding principle. It reduces the amount of variation by (at least) one, giving us 'less' existence. By the same line of thought, the creation of a new entity will always be 'good'. However...
"Patterns are created and maintained at the expense of other patterns."
Animals eat other living things to maintain themselves. The water cycle erodes mountains into sand. The story that you are reading disrupts your awareness of your own circumstances (if only temporarily.) It's like the kaleidoscope: one twist and you have a new pattern, composed of the same components, modifying or destroying the original one. Sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently. Sometimes partially, sometimes totally. The law of conservation of energy rules, always.
The upshot of this is that increasing the diversity of existence by creating new entities will inevitably involve the destruction of other entities. Destruction is an inevitable part of the processes that increase diversity and therefore cannot be 'wrong' in itself. And conversely, nor can creation be absolutely 'good' if it inevitably involves destruction of entities. Therefore, creation and destruction can only be judged individually, in each specific case, in terms of their net effect on diversity.
This entry was originally posted at http://corvuscornix.dreamwidth.org/44334.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
If all entities/patterns are unique then they all add to the diversity of existence, i.e. they are all "good", they all have inherent value in themselves. Pebbles and human beings, ideas and teacups, galaxies and slime moulds.
But do all patterns add to diversity equally? One one level, simply looking at a snapshot of the universe and counting the number of identifiable patterns in it, the answer seems to be yes? If the entity represents the fundamental unit of existence then all entities are equal in value, adding to diversity in the same way: 1 + 1 + 1...
Translated into actions, the immediate consequence of this seems to be that the destruction of an entity, any entity, will always be a bad thing, in terms of the founding principle. It reduces the amount of variation by (at least) one, giving us 'less' existence. By the same line of thought, the creation of a new entity will always be 'good'. However...
"Patterns are created and maintained at the expense of other patterns."
Animals eat other living things to maintain themselves. The water cycle erodes mountains into sand. The story that you are reading disrupts your awareness of your own circumstances (if only temporarily.) It's like the kaleidoscope: one twist and you have a new pattern, composed of the same components, modifying or destroying the original one. Sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently. Sometimes partially, sometimes totally. The law of conservation of energy rules, always.
The upshot of this is that increasing the diversity of existence by creating new entities will inevitably involve the destruction of other entities. Destruction is an inevitable part of the processes that increase diversity and therefore cannot be 'wrong' in itself. And conversely, nor can creation be absolutely 'good' if it inevitably involves destruction of entities. Therefore, creation and destruction can only be judged individually, in each specific case, in terms of their net effect on diversity.
This entry was originally posted at http://corvuscornix.dreamwidth.org/44334.html. Please comment there using OpenID.