X-Message-Number: 24933 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:34:43 -0700 From: Mike Perry <> Subject: Forever Friendly versus Techno-Hell The thrust of Mike Price's argument for the existence of techno-Hells alongside of Heavens seems to be contained in the following. >It doesn't matter how likely you imagine the group selection >pressures will be against the construction of techno-Hells by >sadistic superbeings, they some will still exist. Your arguments, >as I have repeatedly tried to point out, will only reduce >the ratio of Hells: Heavens, not eliminate them. In an infinite >multiverse any non-zero ratio implies an infinite number of >Hells. I agree that any nonzero ratio implies an infinite number of various types of places that actually exist. But I think we have some confusion of concepts here. We can think of "virtual" Heaven, let's call it would-be Heaven, as an actually existing place somewhere, where conditions are good and getting better, and similarly, would-be Hell would be a place where conditions are bad and getting worse. In this case, would-be Heaven only becomes a real Heaven in the limit of infinite time, as it endures forever and reaches a kind of ultimate perfection. Similarly, would-be Hell requires infinite survival (and development in its own evil direction) to become a true Hell in the limit of time. If it disappears or changes character after some finite time, it wasn't really a Hell but only a purgatory. Now, the question before us concerns the likelihood of a real Heaven versus a real Hell, rather than the would-be approximations, which again should be infinite in number in an infinite multiverse. For certain reasons I think the would-be Hells would be far outnumbered by would-be Heavens, but in addition, I think certain instabilities in the would-be Hells would make their continuance more problematic and less likely than in the case of the would-be Heavens. Indeed, it is my hope and gut feeling that would-be Hells at least would have zero probability of surviving forever and turning into real Hells. This of course is only a conjecture, but I think there are some interesting arguments that support it. First it will be instructive to consider an analogous but simpler issue: the coin toss sequence. Assuming a coin is fair, we have an equal probability of heads or tails on each toss. For a given sequence of tosses, let h be the fraction of tosses that show heads. For a finite sequence, however long, h can assume values between 0 and 1, and there will be infinitely many coin toss sequences (in more than one sense) with the given value h. However, for an infinite sequence, the only allowable value of h is 0.5 corresponding to a "balanced" sequence having an equal frequency of heads and tails-all other outcomes have probability zero, as should be clear by considering the probabilities. So logically we can imagine an infinite sequence of tosses where h, say, is 0.6 rather than 0.5. And it's true that there are finite sequences of arbitrary length where this is so, and they must occur infinitely often in an infinite multiverse. Yet again, the infinite but unbalanced sequence with h=0.6 (or any other value besides 0.5) never occurs. It is logically possible but physically impossible. Returning now to the problem of Hell, I ask if such an outcome is not also "unbalanced" in a reasonable sense that might make it physically impossible. Each sentient being will rationally want to seek its optimal advantage or highest happiness over infinite time. Would this be obtainable anywhere but in Heaven, where it might be shared by all? As a perpetrator or cofounder of Hell, such a being would face opposition on two fronts. The tormented in Hell would not care to promote the highest happiness of their oppressors, but might well act as contrary to this aim as possible and have at least some perceived success. Outsiders, moreover, if they learned what was going on, would be shocked and try to close the show, as it were. (To escape from their interference might be easy in the future or not. So far I have yet to hear of anyone escaping into a parallel universe, and you'd still have to ask if someone else could follow and track them down if, say, he were to spend an extended period of time using future technology.) I also think that the mere knowledge that one is evil would detract from one's sense of self-worth and produce less happiness, a feeling that might be reinforced, in this case, by the tormented who would naturally remind one of such a defect. (Strenuous efforts to redefine one's values and treat the evil in oneself as a "great good" would, I think, meet with less than perfect success, if for no other reason because it would be obvious that others disagreed and had a point.) So basically I think that, not only rarely would an advanced, rational being consider any course of serious evil, but, if it ever did start down that path, it would normally quickly come to its senses and act to reverse its mistakes. More rarely the mistakes would continue for a more extended time, but never eternally, even if reinforced by others with shared values, who must also be susceptible to reason and the wish for supreme happiness. There is strength in shared values, but not all values are on an equal footing in this respect. The torment of a victim, should it ever start, would eventually end, and a would-be Hell would not endure forever. Live, grow, and be friendly--forever. Mike Perry Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=24933