thegoodfellas/blogset-br huggingface dataset:
the organism satiates the thirst it will be acting according to the wills of the genes that created the mechanism of thirst. However, there could also be conflicting wills. For instance, I may feel like eating candy and, at the same time, I may want to lose weight and be healthy. How can I prioritize that? What if a gene-perpetuative action is anti-ethical? The best way to solve those conflicts is through a priorities hierarchy. See below what I propose: Scientific Meta Ethics should be the greatest hierarchical valued rule. This way, not even gene-perpetuative actions are allowed if they infringe SME. The gene-perpetuative path must be prioritized in relation to satisfaction of wills and wishes. Satisfaction of wills and wishes is a way of following the genes. Through this hierarchy, pragmatic-Genismo, which used to be based on hedonism as a way of maximizing pleasure without necessarily a counterpart in perpetuation of genes, now is not genistically compatible anymore in case the action is against gene-perpetuation. Maximization of Happiness It is easy now to notice, through priorities hierarchization, that the goal of Genismo, by definition, is the maximization of happiness in the first place, since SME has maximization of happiness as a basic postulate: Scientific Meta Ethics postulates that an action is better or fairer than another one when the level of general happiness created from it, computed in the longest period of time possible, is superior to the level of happiness created in the same period. [5] Happiness among Genists and non-Genists Genismo makes cultural goal compatible with the biological goal. This way, Genists have an extra ideological pleasure for knowing that they are acting in a gene-perpetuative way, even if this action also causes pleasure naturally, which is in general sponsored by genes when one follows the gene-perpetuative path. On the other hand non-genists, especially the ones who are not interested in gene-perpetuation, will not always follow a gene-perpetuative path, and most regularly a diversion from this path will make one suffer or at least prevent one from being as happy as one could be when following it. In natural conditions, a non-genist has two options: The individual does not follow any ideology, religion or life philosophy. In that case the person must follow what gives him/her more pleasure, that is, the person will follow his/her instincts aiming happiness, what would be more or less like the genist pillar that says we must follow our genes. It is like returning to our primitive origins but within a modern environment. That could probably lead to a gene-perpetuative path, but not necessarily! The individual follows some ideology, religion or philosophy of life. In case those philosophies are not Genismo, the person will have to restrict or act in a way that does not favors genes and, for that reason, he/she will at some moment repress genes, what should cause loss of happiness. For example: some religions promote physical sacrifices like whipping and boring prayers to please God. But those sacrifices decrease physical pleasure and therefore happiness, though they can cause ideological pleasure.
However, a genist has ideological pleasure without having to stray from the gene-perpetuative rout. That way he/she would have a greater happiness than a non-genist with no ideology or a non-genist with ideology. This way we demonstrate that following Genismo produces more happiness than not following it. The Matrix Case The matrixian case is an extremely artificial chance of maximization of individual happiness at the expense of maximum alienation of the world and the universe. As follows: Suppose a person wants to maximize his/her personal happiness and enters a matrixian cocoon where electrodes are implanted in his/her brain and he/she will receive intravenous feeding, in a way that he/she will spend the rest of his/her life in this machine that maximizes happiness. By definition, the machine will maximize happiness to the highest level his/her brain can handle. Happiness will be maximized as it would never be in the real world. This person will not perpetuate any genes and will consume many planet resources in order to stay in that machine for years. Now I ask the reader a difficult question: would you enter this matrixian machine if it was offered to you cost-free? And if not, why not? If your answer is yes it is because there is already gene-perpetuative spark acting in you! References [1] A Formula da Felicidade [Happiness Formula]http://www.Genismoo.com/metatexto37.htm [2] Genismoo: Uma introducao [Genismo: na introduction]http://www.Genismoo.com/Genismootexto1.htm [3] Gravidez na adolescencia [Teenage pregnancy]http://www.brasilescola.com/biologia/gravidez-adolescencia.htm [4] A Teleonomia: o para nao significa proposito. [Teleonomy: for does not mean purpose.]http://www.Genismoo.com/Genismootexto3.htm#4 [5] Introducao a MEC [Introduction to Scientific Meta Ethics]http://www.Genismoo.com/filosofia2.htm
following flaws:- Criterion flaw one: if the physical laws exist and are used to explain the universe, then they should also be explained, since they are part of the universe we wish to explain. That is, the majority of them, as we will see, attempt to explain the origin of the universe by adopting some principles of Physics such as the Principle of Conservation of Energy and laws of Quantum Mechanics or even general Theory of Relativity, without however explaining the origin of these laws.The majority of these modern natural theories based on quantum mechanics come from Almost Absolute Nothingness, something like a Quantum Vacuum with no matter or energy but they can explain the appearance of physical elements that would have originated the Big-Bang, without violating the physical laws of conservation.The explanation for the appearance of matter without violating the law of conservation of energy is that the gravity produced by particles would have a negative potential energy that would counterbalance the positive energy of the particles created, therefore creating a universe with total energy equal to zero.Let us see some examples:- Quotation [4] extracted from Creation Ex Nihilo Without God by Mark I. Vuletic [1]There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking, 1988, 129- From Mark Zero by Jomar Morais [2], we highlight:Where does the universe come from? Guths answer is: from nothing, from zero. The first particles would have come from a simple vacuum fluctuation, an alteration process of an electric field that classical Physics did not know about, but quantum mechanics, which came up last century, ended up revealing to scholars in subatomic intimacy. According to this conjecture known as inflationary universe theory -, primordial particles emerged from the emptiness... Guths theory claims that... At first sight it seems that the phenomenon conflicts with the principle of conservation of energy, which presupposes a balance of the total energy in all transformations in the physical world, but that did not
happened. In the inflationary process, the positive energy of the matter was counterbalanced by the negative energy of the gravitational field, in a way that the total energy has always been zero. When, at last, the negative gravity matter started to decay, diminishing the pace of the expansion, the primordial soup was formed (gas at very high temperatures), presented as the initial condition in the Big-bang theory.- From The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe (1988) by Quentin Smith [3]: A disadvantage of Tryon's theory, and of other theories that postulate a background space from which the universe fluctuates, is that they explain the existence of the universe but only at the price of introducing another unexplained given, namely, the background space. This problem is absent from Vilenkin's theory, which represents the universe as emerging without a cause "from literally nothing" (1982, p. 26). The universe appears in a quantum tunneling from nothing at all to de Sitter space. We can notice that the appearance of the matter from nothing is not new; science knows it for a while. Besides that, non-caused phenomena (that happen without a cause) are not privilege of exotic entities: consider an excited atom in a high energy orbit. There is no formula or physical explanation that can foresee when this electron will go from its high energy orbit to a low energy one. This event is considered as totally random (without causes). When the electron decays from an orbital, a photon (a light particle that did not exist) is created. That is, even in a simple atom we have an example of the existence of phenomena with no cause and the creation of a physical entity that did not exist before (photon). Formerly, some scientists claimed that the cause existed but was not known. This theory was named as Hidden Variable Theory. Later, it was demonstrated that if there was a hidden cause for those events it would violate a mathematical theorem known as Bells Inequality. Nowadays QM understands that there are events without causes in the universe.In order to complete our list, we should also include the two main theories about the origin of the universe with no initial creation, the Big Bang Crunch and the Stationary State.Stationary State Theory [5]Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), Geoffrey Burbidge (1925-) and Jayant Vishnu Narlikar (1938-) suggested in 1993 the Almost Stationary State Theory in an eternal and infinite universe alternating expansions of approximately 40 billion years with contractions. The mass is eternally created in white holes with Planck mass O[ch/G] = 1019 baryons. The mini creation triggers a universe expansion that reduces the average value of the creation field, deposit of negative energy. After the expansion, the field value is reduced, making it hard for a new mini-creation to happen. Gravity then overcomes the expansion and the Universe is contracted, enhancing the field until a new creation occurs. I think the Big-Bang-Big-Crunch Theory is quite elegant; however, it is not compatible with the last cosmological observations that show that the universe is in process of accelerated expansion, that is, far away
from a possible contraction. Another inconveniency of this model is that it seems to violate the second law of thermodynamics that says that the entropy must not be reduced. It seems then that the Big-Bang-Big-Crunch Theory is unfortunately defeated.Another problem with the physics-based natural theories is their difficulties to explain the observable universe in relation to some physical parameters constants that physical laws use what would turn our physical laws into a set of highly improbable rules. For instance, it is claimed that a little alteration in the electron charge, in the neutrino mass, etc, would make our universe quickly collapse. Let us see some texts about that:...The so-called "anthropic coincidences," in which the particles and forces of physics seem to be "fine-tuned" for the production of Carbon-based life are explained by the fact that the spacetime foam has an infinite number of universes popping off, each different. We just happen to be in the one where the forces and particles lent themselves to the generation of carbon and other atoms with the complexity necessary to evolve living and thinking organisms. (Stenger, 1996) [6] ...That suggests a new answer to another intriguing question: how where the laws of physics so perfectly tuned in a way that they permitted the existence of stars, planets and living beings? The classic answer was: fantastic chance or divine miracle. But now there is a third alternative: if each universe has different physical laws, perhaps we live in one of the rarest whose laws allow the emergence of intelligent life. [7]We notice that the answer usually given by those theories about the claim of improbability of physical laws is that there must be infinite or multiple universes parallel to ours and yet somehow, disconnected. Thus, our universe would be only one, amongst infinite existing universes, each one with its own physical laws. But this is not consistent because:- If physical laws as theory M, for instance, or multiple bubbles from Guth were evoked to explain the appearance of the universe, either ours or the infinite other ones, how can one say that physical laws would be different in those other universes? If all universes came from the same initial physical laws, we should expect those laws to be preserved in all universes generated by them!- The models that appeal to infinite rolls of the dice so they can explain the appearing of the number six in one of the dice, although can solve the question, they are really strong and seem to contradict the Occams Razor, since we do not have evidence of any other Universe besides our own cosmos. A continuous sequence of Universes or a finite number of them would be more reasonable, but not totally satisfactory. - The explanation that says the bubbles that generate parallel universes have GAPS that disconnect them from each other is also unsatisfactory. For what reason would not matter be continuously created in the same bubble? What would make those gaps disconnected? Why would those universes be unable to communicate?Nevertheless, the main flaw of the theories that try to
explain the origin of the universe by means of a physical base is that they do not explain the origin of the physical laws used for their own generation. We could ask: Why must the principle of conservation of energy be obeyed? or yet Why does quantum mechanics need to be real? Those theories come from something (physical laws) that already existed. Physical explanations, however, are preferable to religious ones, since a set of laws is simpler than the existence of a supposed being of infinite complexity.2.2- Philosophy-based natural TheoriesPhilosophy-based natural theories about the origin of the universe are the ones not based on physical laws to explain their appearing, but they can explain the appearing of the laws capable of governing it. From that point, if necessary, the universe could be a consequence of physical laws, as it was proposed by physical theories, or some other way.The Origin of the Universe according to JocaxIn order to solve the problem of the origin of the universe, I created a theory that uses the Occams razor to its full potential. Thus, I start from the simplest state possible, the one that does not need an explanation to exist: the Nothingness.But the Nothingness which people think of is not the same nothingness I start from, not even the nothingness physicists base on. For that reason, I will call my nothingness the Jocaxian Nothingness, or simply JN. The JN is defined as the state of nature in which the following conditions are satisfied:1- There are no physical elements of any kind (neither matter, nor energy, nor space).2- There are no laws whatsoever. The "Jocaxian Nothingness" is different from the "Nothingness" we usually think of because when we think about "Nothingness" we think of a real "Nothingness plus the following rule: Nothing can happen from this Nothingness ". Thus, the Nothingness people often think about is not the purest possible; it is a Nothingness with a rule! Another way people often think of Nothingness is by making it a synonym of inexistence. This "Nothingness" as a synonym of inexistence is far from being the "Jocaxian Nothingness" since the JN is something that exists and has properties; it would be something similar to an empty set which has no elements, but is still a set. The "Jocaxian Nothingness" is a "Nothingness that exists, it is a pure nothingness, an Absolute Nothingness, and therefore, has no rules to be followed, not even the rule "Nothing can happen, and much less the laws of conservation of energy or the principles of Quantum Mechanics in Physics. The reader could say that "having no rules" is also a rule to be followed, and therefore the definition of the "Jocaxian Nothingness" would be inconsistent. The answer is - Not having rules is the initial state of the "Nothingness, not a rule it has to follow, just like having no matter or energy. Let us explain: When a system has no rules (or laws) of any kind, it means there are no restrictions laws, and therefore "anything" could happen ... As much as
nothing could happen as well! That is, the inexistence of laws implies that "something may happen", as its negation, "something may not happen" which includes "nothing can happen" and that represents all the possibilities that a system can have. It is therefore a tautology, an absolute truth. Not a rule. We consider the sentence "anything can happen" in its broad sense, which also comprehends "nothing can happen" so that a system that has no laws is a system in which "anything can happen" (including nothing happening at all). Therefore, we conclude that the simplest system possible - the "Jocaxian Nothingness" - is actually a Toti-Potent system where "Anything can happen." If "anything" can happen, then this nothingness can generate, at random, anything. But if nothingness can randomly generate anything, it can generate the universe or the physical laws that would allow the appearing of the material universe. On the other hand, the "JN" could also generate the law "Nothing can happen" and in this case there would be an everlasting nothingness with no possibilities for anything else to happen. This is the idea we normally have in mind when we think of the "Nothingness". But this is only one of the endless possibilities the "JN" can generate. Thus, I propose that the origin of all was the "Jocaxian Nothingness" that because it does not have laws or rules of any kind, "Everything" - in the broad sense of the word - could happen. As there were no rules for what could happen or not, we conclude that RANDOMNESS must be an intrinsic feature of this system, since it can be defined as the unpredictability of what might happen. If you're reading this and the hypothesis of the JN is true, we conclude that, fortunately, the JN did not "randomize" (generated randomly) the rule "nothing can happen". If the JN had generated this rule we would not be here reading this text. On the other hand, if we suppose as true the claim that it is highly unlikely that a set of physical laws randomly generated can generate life, then we would have a problem: it would be extremely unlikely (yet not impossible) that the JN would have "randomized" our universe, and thus it is convenient that we seek an answer to this improbability. Our JN has a "card up its sleeve": as it does not have to obey physical laws or other rules of any kind; anything could happen, even the JN having "randomized" our universe in the way we have it today, everything created at this very moment, where our memories would have been created consistently. Of course, although this is theoretically possible, it would yet be very unlikely. One of the ways of solving the problem would be plagiarizing the theorists of the pre-Big-Bang and say that the JN would have randomly created infinity of bubble universes, each one with its own physical laws, also random. Thus, our universe would be the only one of many "bubble universes" whose physical laws, fortunately, led to life. Another possibility, even simpler and
more interesting, is the creation of the universe with expiration date: the JN would randomly generate a universe with physical laws also randomly generated but with a term or condition of validity, also random. At the end of that period or condition of validity, it would die out and we would come back to the original "Jocaxian Nothingness", which again could "randomize" a new different universe, and so on. This mechanism could explain the "physical laws" of our universe without the need to create infinite parallel universes. There would be a problem if, by chance, the JN generated a universe that was the "Trivial Nothingness": the Nothingness with the following law "Nothing else can happen." In this case, the JN would create the end of everything, forever. Some questions may come to the readers mind: 1-Would not the JN feature of not having rules or laws be a rule itself? No. One rule establishes some form of restriction that must be obeyed. If I say, for example, that "my car is red", this is not a rule but a STATE of the car, a condition in which the car is today. Eventually, the car could be painted blue (or not). Establishing the state of nature, in the conditions defined by the JN, is not a rule to be followed, but an initial state of the system. A rule would be "my car should be red" or yet "my car cannot be red"; in these cases the color of the car would be somehow restricted by a rule. 2- Would saying that anything could happen be a rule? An imposition to the JN? No, because this is a logical consequence of its initial state, not an imposition to the system. Moreover, it would be a rule if we forced the JN to generate something and this is not what we are saying. As we saw in the text, I emphasize that from the JN anything MAY OR MAY NOT happen. And this is not a rule, it is a LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY- an absolute truth in any circumstances - This implies that the JN, just like everything else, follows a tautology (an absolute truth) and not a rule. 3- The JN has no physical elements or laws, but does it have any POWER? If we call "power" the possibility of transforming itself, then the answer is yes. But we must remember that possibility is not certainty, and it could never become or generate anything. It is impossible to say that the JN will necessarily generate something. Thus, "power" is nothing more than a possibility, not pre-defined a priori, but derived from the initial conditions that define the JN. 4-Would the "Trivial Nothingness", where nothing can happen, be more likely to have always existed than the JN? No, the nothingness that people think of (the Trivial Nothingness) is infinitely more unlikely to happen as the origin of the universe than the "JN". That is because the "trivial nothingness" has actually ENDLESS rules to be followed: it cannot generate a chair, it cannot generate physical laws,
it cannot generate god, it cannot generate a Big Bang, it cannot generate life, it cannot generate particles etc... We should also note that if the JN is an existing physical system, then we conclude that the universe has always existed, although time does not exist in the JN, we can say that the JN was the universe itself in its minimal state. --//--Portuguese Version: http://stoa.usp.br/cienciafilosofia/weblog/67134.html