Phi for All

What about more nuanced scenarios? Research has shown that we often prefer a broader range of choices (which makes us feel good/optimistic when we decide to go to the ice cream shop with 31 flavors instead of the place that only has vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry), but are actually demotivated by having to choose from a broader array (we would have been happier making an easier decision). So more choices can be bad. When choices are clearer, simpler, we can be more confident that we chose well. If I finally choose from a broad array, there's a good chance I'm going to regret not choosing one of the many others. I know I'm not missing out on anything when I choose vanilla over chocolate and strawberry, but out of 31 flavors I'm probably going to be curious about at least ten of them. I choose one and wonder if one of the other nine wouldn't have been tastier. So is choice good or bad? When does too much of a good thing turn it into a bad thing? Doesn't that differ with each person?

This is what I was trying to tell you earlier, theories aren't true or false. They represent our best explanations for various phenomena, backed up by the most supportive evidence. Science isn't the right tool to use for morality, or questions about good and bad that have no quantitative measure. You don't use a story to measure the width of your driveway. It's not the right tool. If you really want to use science for this idea, you need to figure out an experiment you can perform that will test the idea. This story format isn't really adaptable to the kind of testing that might lead you to predict how your idea might work.

FTFY.

Oooh, I saw this illusion recently. Two identical rectangles, one placed portrait against a background of receding train tracks, the other placed landscape over parallel train tracks. The brain sees the visual cues of the receding train tracks, and tells your eyes that the portrait rectangle MUST be longer and skinnier than the landscape rectangle because it MUST be farther away. By a LOT, so much so that it really was hard for me to believe it when one of the rectangles was removed and placed exactly over the other.

Let's drop the word theory. That always bugs scientists, since a theory is the best you can get, and represents our current best explanation of a specific phenomenon. Theories don't have just one person writing about them, they have tons of experiments, observational data, peer review, all the evidence that makes an idea trustworthy. I think you should also stop talking about truth. I know you're looking for a universal good and bad, but science just doesn't use subjective words like truth. Ten people will tell you ten truths, and they'll all be true (for them). This excerpt is peppered with subjective terms, like "value" and "worth", "rewarding" and "beautiful". It's hard to look for objective good and bad when there's so much subjectivity around. I also disagree with the candy-would-taste-bland-without-our-reward-system assertion. I've heard stories of natives who'd never been exposed to modern foreigners, or our reward systems, who were given candy for the first time. They didn't think it was bland. They thought it was great! Also, you talk about eternal bliss being a constant condition. Who are these people that get to be happy all the time? Can that even work? I know it's pretty cliche to point out that experiencing all emotions helps you appreciate the "good" ones, but isn't it true? I can appreciate wealth more if I've been poor, and happiness is all the sweeter because I've been absolutely miserable, and I know the difference now. I've learned something good, and I know that's better than the bad ignorance I used to have. Perhaps that's the only universal good/bad in science. Knowledge is good, ignorance is bad. Even knowledge that can be used for bad is good. And ignorance, even though it may allow bliss to flourish, is always bad. Please understand that I'm not shooting the whole idea down. I'm pointing out some parts that don't seem right to me, and I'm asking you to think about it and either explain it more clearly, or acknowledge that it's a problem in your hypothesis.

! Moderator Note Congratulations on joining our forum and ignoring the rules you agreed to! We were created, of course, to serve only you, so your behavior has been simply exemplary! We welcome your muddy feet anytime! I'm just surprised someone like you hasn't come along sooner to correct all these obviously flawed scientific concepts, even if they do work.

Are you kidding me? All this was to advertise your book?! Great example of setting up a situation where failure is the only outcome. You should know by now that we can't advertise for you. It's against the site's rules. And people should be able to participate in this discussion without clicking external links. But now you get to claim I'm the "bad" guy. How long is it? Can you post excerpts? That's allowed.

We normally stop ignorance with knowledge. In the case of "YouTube swamping", ignoring it works also. You won't be swamping SFN with anything. You cry mockery, but nobody mocked your ideas at all. We've been asking clarifying questions, and then trying to decipher your defensive and rude replies, which are mostly ungracious and have no actual answers.

! Moderator Note Seriously, we attack the idea here, not the person. Please stop with the ad hom attacks. NOBODY is treating YOU this way.

This still doesn't answer my specific question. You claimed, as fact, that there "has to be" an absolute, objective, "scientific" definition of good and bad, something universal to everything, or at least all humans. You further claimed that it's a definition we're all currently unaware of. This seems to be at the heart of your hypothesis, and it seems to be a real stumbling block. When you're looking at anything objectively, you can't use words like "good" and "bad", since they're entirely subjective. Even if you just use humans, there are few universal truths about them that aren't tautologies (you can't say "All humans are alive", you have to say "All living humans are alive"). Even here, you seem to be basing what is good or bad on what's been done to you. That's very subjective. Could it be that you're lumping all such "quoted messages" together and judging them to be inadequate? I can see where "Just change your way of thinking and stop being depressed!" would be an unsophisticated and shallow suggestion. But variations of that sentiment are at the heart of any successful therapy I've ever seen. For instance, I know some folks who get into a tough situation and start listing their alternatives, but only the negative ones. They set up their own False Dilemmas by painting themselves into a corner, by only considering options that are doomed to fail or won't bring the desired outcome. If they feel like they're trapped in a hole, they don't give themselves a way to climb out. In these cases, thinking differently is essential. I'll read further, since you've set this up as an attempt to discuss a cure, rather than asking about your particular depression, but I wanted some clarity on why you think good and bad could ever be defined in an absolute way.

Can I assume you're thinking about buying an expensive boxed set of a few seasons, and that's why you're asking about a moral judgement before you've seen it? I would suggest you find a way to watch a few episodes, and make this moral decision based on actual evidence and not just hearsay.

Penn & Teller did an episode on that. It takes a fraction of the time spent building fences to circumvent them. Under, over, or through, you can't build a fence you can afford over that much land that can actually keep people out. And even with sensors, we don't have enough manpower to patrol the whole thing.

That's swansont, all right. Physicist/thug/suppressor for the US Naval Observatory. What would someone who keeps our atomic clocks running know about precision?

I got to here and now I need you to explain why you think this is a fact. I'll read further once you've explained. I don't think this is true at all, but I'm willing to be persuaded by evidence.

! Moderator Note We're a resource for students, and we need to have the mainstream sections free from inaccurate or unsubstantiated information (you said yourself you're still putting this all together). This is why we have a Speculations section. It does sound like you aren't ready for the type of reviews we do on new ideas. We aren't pushovers that require little rigor, but you should be able to find plenty of sites that are. Be warned that you'll get equal amounts of praise and ridicule, in a manner that is far less civil than we require here. Best of luck elsewhere.

I know this one! [math]x=0[/math]

! Moderator Note Despite the warning, replies to my modnote were posted, and then removed as promised. If you have a problem with a modnote, use the Report Post feature, don't derail the thread further.

! Moderator Note Please don't use someone else's thread to advertise your own. Also, your concept is speculative, and doesn't belong in the mainstream sections. Please confine unproven hypotheses to the proper section. If you respond to this modnote, it will be removed. Report it if you have a problem with it, so the thread is not further derailed.

Well, I'd hate to get ripped in half a millisecond before I was vaporized, just because I forgot and used my atomic punch. I just want to be responsible about where the other half of my body goes.

It's quite possible. I don't know how to deal mathematically with the assumption he's making, that there is data every senior knows. It's not correct. Is he the type that would respond to a formula, or would you rather call him out on bad reasoning? If he were posting here, I'd ask him to provide a link to the data every senior knows... including him. Then I'd quiz him to make sure.

It sounds like throwing a punch fast enough to have that much energy would rip you in half (a solitaire game of crack-the-whip), since the recoil takes effect before the punch lands.

It's not a physics problem, and I'm not sure math is the right tool either. It's more of a logic problem. There's no list of data that every senior knows, not even just the seniors at your school. So there's no way to establish "...you should know that". If such a list existed, then by definition you would know all the data on it because you're a senior. Or, if the list existed, your troll could claim you weren't a senior if you didn't know all the data on it. But, your troll established the antecedent "You're a senior" right away, so he's actually contradicting himself with his comment.

I'm going with "what?", since you had to first defend the question with an empty assurance that my future president isn't a monster.

! Moderator Note Private message is not fine, this is a discussion forum with members, both amateur and professional, and we all prefer more transparency. Also, you're ignoring evidence that's being presented because you claim it lacks detail, which it does NOT. You're encouraged to ask questions, but please don't try to claim you have new science when it's clear you don't understand what mainstream science (our absolute best current explanations) is trying to tell you. And there is no truth in science. Just the explanation best supported by evidence. Please don't respond to this modnote in this thread. Report it if you object.

Absolutely. Reason alone might tell me that it would be in the best interests of my survival to eliminate at least half the world's population so I'll have more resources. My emotions would never allow that. There are probably too many examples of this to list comprehensively. In just about every example I can think of, removing either emotion or reason from the process leaves you with flawed decisions.