morriswalters wrote:If it makes you feel better, define good as increasing complexity and bad as reducing it. I believe that is measurable and concrete. The assumption normal logic imposes is that the conditions can be stated in language. And since only a small component of the universe uses language that would seem to anthropocentric. If you wanted to be poetic you could say that the universe is at war with entropy. It constantly creates entities that increase local complexity while entropy works to decrease it.
That seems...odd. Complexity would not seem inherently desirable or undesirable. I can easily describe many circumstances where either is preferable.
The universe isn't really at war with entropy or anything else. It simply is. It has certain properties, one of which is happens to be that, as time progresses, overall entropy increases. We can perhaps postulate a universe without entropy, but it would be a very strange and different place indeed. Morals, in any meaningful definition, only exist as a subset of this universe, just as we exist as a subset of this universe. The various physical laws allow us to exist, which allows various human goals to exist. (or dolphins and dolphin goals, whichever). There's a causal chain there, and one objective reality of which everything is a part, but it isn't one where morality is the originating force.
You CAN postulate a world run by belief. This comes up a fair bit in fantasy, where when enough people believe in a god, bam, you get a god. It's a cool idea, and by definition, reality in such a place is subjective, and causality works kind of differently than here. In such a world, it might make sense to view the universe as an entity, or entropy as an entity, because why not? But, in reality, that does not seem to be the case. It seems that humans are just really fond of ascribing meaning to and anthropomorphizing frigging everything.