Measuring Objective Morality
Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 3:50 pm
"no such thing exist"
"incompatible with science"
"scientism cannot accept it"
These are the words associated with Objective Morality. From a reduced logic, it does make sense. We cannot define objective morality.
I have great respect for Scientism, and I feel I am allied with the Atheists. Though I am not Scientistic myself, neither am I atheist.
That is why I would like to start defining Objective Morality without the need for a divine creator. Because even though there exists a divine creator, it wouldn't help us understand why morality should be objective.
Physicists are beginning to talk about consciousness as being a state of matter.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1219
It is very advanced physics, but boiled down and stripped of all the maths and explanations, a good analogy would be water molecules:
They can be either fluid, vapor or ice. It has to do with the way the atoms/molecules are organized.
They can even measure consciousness in terms of bits.
I would like to take this idea a step further and try to define morality:
With some matter that has the state of consciousness, for example a brain or whatever can have this consciousness state of matter,
it will show certain properties specific to the state of matter that give rise to its good or bad feelings (pleasure vs. pain).
Then we have some other conscious matter which feels pleasure from inflicing pain other matter.
The question is: Who's right? How do we objectively define what good morality is for either state of matter?
How do we objectively define who should have the right to pleasure and who should give up pleasure to get pain in order to fulfill the other's needs?
What about this:
Idea. We know it from maths. You can invent something, like "i" which is the square root of -1.
You can take this invention and have a whole set of mathematics and logics from it. That's how quantum mechanics was invented in the first place.
If mathematicians can invent and idea, so should Moralists!
I have this idea/invention:
Consciousness should feel more pleasure than pain, to the most possible physical extent. Meaning, whatever is physically possible to achieve more pleasure than pain, is the objective goal. I have nothing else than this idea, I have no arguments why I should invent this. I just do.
From this idea/invention we can invent a set of logical rules. It means when we can define consciousness having pleasure, we can objectively define which properties it will have when it feels pleasure/pain.
With consciousness I mean everything from ainmals to humans. Animals have less degree of consciousness than humans, so hurting a worm is not as bad as hurting a human. When all conscious beings that we know of are summed, we can furthermore look at our history and future of consciousness and measure the total amount of pleasure vs. pain.
This ratio (pleasure-pain) should be maximized in favor of pleasure.
In a global/universal system of conscious objects, the most physically and lengthy possible pleasure should be the ultimate goal of moral measure.
I believe that when the theory of Consciousness as a State of Matter is finished, we can also measure morality when applying this principle.
We will be able to objectively measure morality in terms of degrees of good morality and apply it to all sorts of specific events and actions in our everyday life, from our relationships with friends and family, to politics.
"incompatible with science"
"scientism cannot accept it"
These are the words associated with Objective Morality. From a reduced logic, it does make sense. We cannot define objective morality.
I have great respect for Scientism, and I feel I am allied with the Atheists. Though I am not Scientistic myself, neither am I atheist.
That is why I would like to start defining Objective Morality without the need for a divine creator. Because even though there exists a divine creator, it wouldn't help us understand why morality should be objective.
Physicists are beginning to talk about consciousness as being a state of matter.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1219
It is very advanced physics, but boiled down and stripped of all the maths and explanations, a good analogy would be water molecules:
They can be either fluid, vapor or ice. It has to do with the way the atoms/molecules are organized.
They can even measure consciousness in terms of bits.
I would like to take this idea a step further and try to define morality:
With some matter that has the state of consciousness, for example a brain or whatever can have this consciousness state of matter,
it will show certain properties specific to the state of matter that give rise to its good or bad feelings (pleasure vs. pain).
Then we have some other conscious matter which feels pleasure from inflicing pain other matter.
The question is: Who's right? How do we objectively define what good morality is for either state of matter?
How do we objectively define who should have the right to pleasure and who should give up pleasure to get pain in order to fulfill the other's needs?
What about this:
Idea. We know it from maths. You can invent something, like "i" which is the square root of -1.
You can take this invention and have a whole set of mathematics and logics from it. That's how quantum mechanics was invented in the first place.
If mathematicians can invent and idea, so should Moralists!
I have this idea/invention:
Consciousness should feel more pleasure than pain, to the most possible physical extent. Meaning, whatever is physically possible to achieve more pleasure than pain, is the objective goal. I have nothing else than this idea, I have no arguments why I should invent this. I just do.
From this idea/invention we can invent a set of logical rules. It means when we can define consciousness having pleasure, we can objectively define which properties it will have when it feels pleasure/pain.
With consciousness I mean everything from ainmals to humans. Animals have less degree of consciousness than humans, so hurting a worm is not as bad as hurting a human. When all conscious beings that we know of are summed, we can furthermore look at our history and future of consciousness and measure the total amount of pleasure vs. pain.
This ratio (pleasure-pain) should be maximized in favor of pleasure.
In a global/universal system of conscious objects, the most physically and lengthy possible pleasure should be the ultimate goal of moral measure.
I believe that when the theory of Consciousness as a State of Matter is finished, we can also measure morality when applying this principle.
We will be able to objectively measure morality in terms of degrees of good morality and apply it to all sorts of specific events and actions in our everyday life, from our relationships with friends and family, to politics.
