Good and Bad-What is the difference?

My point about good and bad is that at the absolute level it doesn’t matter a jot you think…and as you can’t be sure that they are the same ..that is just yours or someone else’s opinion or ASSUMPTION then REASONABLE science should consider the opposite ASSUMPTION that they are not the same as well.

If you could PROVE definitively that they are the same then ok I would agree with you but you can’t and so one should factor both possibilities in to all science equations.

Mainstream science doesn’t do this.


Key rubbish in you get rubbish out.

That's precisely why the 4 off logic outputs exist.

first off you are referring to fuzzy logic because in mainstream Logic Anne and Bob are well defined.

Second in the case when you want to look at the phenomenological use of the wording "good" and "bad" you ought only to pay attention to the result and not the chain of events or intentions that started it. A nutcase who thinks he is bad is just a sick mind trying to assert dominance.

It is not that good can cause bad and bad cause good is that our definition of good and bad are misrepresented when applied to complex systems.

I’m not referring to fuzzy logic at all …I am referring to DEFINITE logic.

I don’t do “fuzzy”.

Why should I only pay attention to the result and not the chain of events or intentions that started it?

I have provided a starting point and and end point with logic output possibilities because all anyone can do including mainstream “eccentric “ science is ASSUME a start and end point point until definitive information is available.

This is SOUND Philosophy/Science not “phoney” Philosophy/Science.

...and all I am saying is that you should not to try and label the inputs and outputs as good or bad because you are misrepresenting the complexity of Reality.
Regarding our species Good means the species is thriving and bad that is going extinct.

Using obscure, old, opaque concepts is dangerous.

One can make things up based upon ASSUMPTIONS but they are not necessarily ABSOLUTES.

Mainstream “eccentric” science needs to recognise this and allow for it in their calculations.

At the end of the day if “reasonable” science principles/logic are correct then science will confirm it.

What is totally clear ..it is that presently “eccentric” mainstream “phoney”science is only confirming the “swinging” pendulum that you remain trapped upon.

In order to be coherent with that statement and not play the role of the typical easy going cynical and hypocrite I would seriously advise you to ditch your mobile phone, your computer, your car, and even your house. Don't copy paste anything from Science and redesign and re invent everything for yourself. After doing that you can be entitled to throw a fist at Science and make all the pot shots you want!

Post Scriptum - Don't confuse me for a minute with the American red neck anti Science movement...I am an European and my sort of nuanced criticism has nothing to do with the trivial American cultural raging disgrace going on back there since the civil war.

Come on Albuquerque billions have been spent on science using HALF formulas.

Half formulas provide half answers and always will.

Can you not see this?

Philosophy confirms it.

You don’t have to believe that good and bad are different but at least factor this possibility into the formulas and then be amazed by the results.

So according to mainstream science then,

Good is Good
Good is Bad
Bad is Good
Bad is Bad

Anyone disagree.

How can anyone disagree with the last statement?….Absolutely nobody can, surely.

Moral Relativism either inter cultures or inter species has systemic absolute rules on how it operates properly and in that sense Moral Relativism is subdued by Moral Absolutism by NECESSITY...it just is not what most people think it is!

Interesting Albuquerque……however that is not mainstream science’s view.

Mainstream science’s view is that Good is Good….Good is Bad…..Bad is Good …..Bad is Bad……because neither can be defined…..

Let me give you a minimal viable product of "Good"

Good is what exists in 4D spacetime. Good is what is factual!

This definition of Good is justified in the idea of Cosmic Order!

By Cosmic order one is specifically pointing to the ONE 4D space whole Reality with all domains of operations!

Why is Order equated with Good one wonders? Because there is no alternative to the whole of Reality, that which is is thus fore right as it fits a place in the Ecosystem, the problem doesn't go away with a Multiverse either as the same logic applies, again Good is the FINAL ORDER of all things and their place in "spacetime".

In Sum, and you are hearing it here first, Good is ABSOLUTE while "Evil" is circumstantial or phenomenological, as the perception of "Evil" steams from epistemic ambiguity/uncertainty/ignorance about how future states of affairs are justified or how past and present states of affairs are excessively complex to make sense of as they transcend our domain of computation.

In this light "Evil" is an illusion, although it might be argued that in order for life to have meaning this illusion of inconformity in conscious beings is necessary for the will to action that every living being necessitates.

"Good" is thus the NECESSARY ORDER of a string of Information describing all phenomena. In modern parlance Physicists call it the Universal Wave Function.

That’s interesting Albuquerque, however, what has it got to do with mainstream sciences claim that good is good and bad is bad as well as it’s claim that good is bad and bad is good?

I think we are over complicating things here.

If good and bad are the same then the statement good is good and bad is bad stands as they are all the same aren’t they? Or are you claiming that that is a LIE?

Do what God wants and says - Good. All else, no credit or bad.

So its agreed then, the statements..... good is good.....good is bad.....bad is good .......bad is bad are sound philosophical statements according to accepted science.

Fair enough...........I will go along with that.