From: schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel)
Subject: Re: Physics and Morality
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:13:52 GMT

jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary) writes:


>	This is my senior year term paper for Literature and Philosophy.
               **some deleted**
>The Outside Force: A Philosophical Treatise

>	To the best of our knowledge, goodness and evil have been concepts
>known to man since the beginning of the human race.  For nearly as long,
>humans have been debating about these selfsame concepts.  The teaching of
>what is good and what is not is traditionally put in the hands of religion
>and those who teach it.  Often, however, these religions conflict with one
>another; one's idea of good is another's idea of evil, and yet another
>feels the whole thing to be morally neutral.  It is sometimes said that no
>absolute standard can be reached, and that one's morality and, therefore,
>concept of goodness, must be mainly subjective.  Yet many would agree that
>there are some things most people feel to be objectively wrong.  How, then,
>are we to decide what is good and what is evil? By what standard can goodness
>be judged? Is there any such standard?
>	To seek this standard, we shall begin with the Odd Couple Postulate,
>which states: "To assume makes an ass of you and me."1  This is a form of
>Ockham's razor, a philosophic rule which states that one should not multiply
>entities beyond necessity.

I think by `entities' you really mean `axiom' or `proposition', entity usually
refers to a being or physical object, ideas are not really entities.

  Very well, then, if we begin by saying we do not
>presume the existence of a God or other entity- indeed, if we do not presume
>the existence of any being, including ourselves- we begin with only the
>Universe itself.  What can be said about the Universe that will always remain
>constant? What always holds true? The physical laws, discovered and tested by
>scientists, that I will hereafter call the Great Laws.  That without outside
>interference, a body at rest will stay at rest, and one in motion will stay in
>motion.  That in a closed system, heat energy flows spontaneously from a hot
>object to a cold object, but never in the opposite direction.  That neither
>matter nor energy can be created nor destroyed, but only changed, one to the
>other.

We have no proof that physical laws are permanent, all we have is experience
of these laws never changing, i.e. causality has to be accepted as an axiom
since we can't do experiments without causality (causality implies that every
effect A has a particular cause B and that given A, B will always follow).
But the assumption of causality is so useful that we have it engrained in our
brains as a permanent fact.

                ** some deletion of stuff about entropy**

>	Human beings can also act in concert with the Second Great Law, and
>accelerate the increase of entropy in the Universe.  A fire set by an
>arsonist transforms the matter of the house in question into heat energy,
>destroys the order its structure had held, and reduces the house to a state
>of inert uniformity.  A murder ends the life of a human being, enabling the
>victim's body to disintegrate and fall to dust- inert, uniform dust.  And
>even when an action has no apparent effect on anything other than the one
>performing the action- for instance, a sick person who opts not to take
>medicine- entropy will, eventually, increase.  The actions of whatever
>pathogen causes the illness speed up the destruction and eventual death of
>the sick person.
>	Suppose we take the hypothetical empty Universe- the one devoid of
>entities- as an example.  Here, we must add an entity, for it is only the
>action of an outside force- a consciousness- that can change the course of
>a Great Law.  Let us say this entity consists of matter and energy both- that
>it is alive, for surely a thing with no energy other than the potential
>inherent in its chemical bonds is not alive.  What is that entity's most
>innate drive? What is the drive found in all creatures, from the lowest
>protozoan to the great sperm whale? Continued existence.

this is an antropormophic viewpoint, something like a protozoan has no `drive'
to continue, it is the result of natural selection, mutation and adaption.  It
simply continues due to its construction-- a well built watch runs longer
before breaking than a cheap one, does this mean the well built watch has more
drive to survive? NO. it is simply built that way.

  The definition of a
>living creature is one that transforms energy for its own purposes- that can
>be the outside force!- and that is capable of reproduction.  Reproduction is
>a means of continuing existence, whether only through DNA (in the case of the
>protozoan) or through raising progeny (whales, humans, elephants, apes, and so
>forth).  Therefore, a living creature is an entity that seeks to perpetuate
>its own existence, in its particular form and according to the order of its
>kind.

        see above, but i do agree that humans can seek to reproduce themselves
        but it is closer to the truth to say that animals have instincts that
        push them to reproduce.
        

>	Is it not illogical for such an entity to act against its own
>existence? Of course.  For there is no such thing as nonexistence, only

        no such thing as nonexistence?  of course there is, or are you
        referring to the whole universe?

>change.  Thus runs the Third Great Law.  Matter becomes energy; energy becomes
>less useful, eventually becoming heat, the least useful and therefore most
>entropic form of energy.  Heat is the motion of particles.  Without an
>outside force, those particles will stay in motion forever.  Therefore, there
>can be no such thing as nonexistence.  It is foolish and illogical to strive
>for something that cannot be achieved; it is a waste of energy and a hastening
>of one's own death, and the eventual disintegration of the Universe into
>uselessness and void.
>	Existence is a fact.  Even if we believe that we are the only ones
>who exist, we must still acknowledge our own existence in doing so.  Each
>person is made of matter and energy both- matter in the body, energy in the
>nervous system and in the potential of the body's parts.  Like all other
>living entities, it is only logical that we seek to continue our own
>existence.  And to do so, we must change.  For without change, what does the
>first Great Law say? Things remain the same.  And if things remain the same,
>the Second Great Law comes into play, and entropy increases.  A human being
>who acts in a way that increases entropy acts against either herself or the
>Universe.  In the first case, she is directly attacking her own existence as
>she knows it.  In the second, she is attacking the realm from which come the
>things that enable her to continue her own existence as she knows it- her
>food, oxygen, water, heat, and so forth.  In either case, she is acting
>illogically, only hastening her own end.  The continued existence of one's
>self, and therefore, the Universe, is the only logical course of action.
>From this proceeds all good.
>	For what causes pain and grief in society? Entropy.  Disorder.  The

Not really, many things are painful in society that have little to do with
entropy increasing.  If fact connecting such human interest topics as bad
and good to physics is very questionable since your thesis,

        good=order and bad=disorder is 
        hard to support, many things that people would consider `bad'
        are entropy irrelevent. (does a good thought have less 
        entropy than a bad thought? nope)

>action of one human being against another's existence, whether directly or
>indirectly.  A murder or a transposed zero in a company's bank account both
>hasten the increase of entropy.  The first is a direct attempt to transform
>matter and energy into a less ordered and less useful state.  The second
>causes disorder within the company, inability to pay people properly, and
>eventual harm to unpaid workers.  Entropy again.  Attempts by dictatorial
>regimes to maintain a status quo- attempts commonly regarded as evil- also
>hasten the increase of entropy, for they prevent the intrusion of the outside
>force that is the only savior from entropy.  Change is the only guard against
>this.  Change is the only way they can continue to exist- and by denying
>change, they deny their own chance of existence.  Only by changing, by
>acknowledging and using outside forces, can anything continue to exist in its
>own form.
>	If we wield the blade of Ockham and reduce the number of entities in a
>physical system to one, there are only a handful of known absolutes for that
>one.  The Great Laws of inertia, entropy, and the conservation of matter and
>energy are three of them.  The other is the biological imperative to continue
>to exist, which is really a form of the Third Great Law.  In order to continue
>that existence, the entity in question must not only act in a manner that does
>not increase the system's entropy, but in a manner that creates increased
>order with as little disorder as possible.  Continued existence in the most
>ordered form possible, whether for bridges or beings or societies, is the
>highest form of good.  Maintenance alone is not enough to stand against
>entropy, for maintenance requires an input of energy.  Evil- that is to say,
>entropy- requires something more to be overcome.  Good may only be achieved
>through change, through evolution, through the continued development of
>beings, society, and the Universe until the most ordered form possible is
>reached- and even then, that form must change in order to continue.  And for
>change to occur, one thing and one thing only is required.  By whatever name
>it is called- whether it is an entity that watches over the Universe and
>protects it, or merely a part of nature, the hand of humanity- that which is
>required for good to exist is the Outside Force.

>1The Odd Couple, TV show, episode unknown.

>2Paul Simon, "Have A Good Time".

>3Larry Gonick, author of The Cartoon History Of The Universe

>Any comments?

Hm, Nazi Germany was one of the most ordered states in history, would it be
considered good?  I wouldn't.  I want to see a clarified version of this
because I don't see how a connection can be made between thermodynamics
and morality.

Mark


>-- 
>Jessica McGeary
>jmm25@po.cwru.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism