Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ThemrocX t1_iqqn4t8 wrote

Reply to comment by apriorian in Utopia”: meaning ‘no place’; from Greek: οὐ (not’) and τόπος (‘place’) by Sphaerocypraea

I'm sorry to disappoint you but most of psychology and sociology have pretty clear answers to the questions you have pondered for so long. First of all you are wrong in assuming that truth is always simpler. The opposite is true: the closer the description is to the reality it describes, the more complex it becomes. This is also the reason for a few of the false assumptions you have: People are neither good nor evil nor are they irrational. Infact people are super predictable. 80 percent of our actions are steered by heuristics exactly because reality is too complex for us to grasp fast enough. This IS a form of rationality, but in complex scenarios it often leads to bad outcomes.

It is also why we are unable to construct a system that is impenetrable to corruption. Because corruption (as in a lack of balance, destabilising the system) is the very thing that keeps societies from dieing. A "perfect" system is a closed system, but a closed system cannot survive. It needs input, but every input introduces instability. There is absolutely no way around this.

7

apriorian t1_iqqobzx wrote

As to your last point, all you need to do to find a way around this is to change your assumptions.

−1

ThemrocX t1_iqqqa2c wrote

What good is changing your assumptions if the assumptions you are going to adopt are wrong?

5

apriorian t1_iqqr07o wrote

About as good as starting from the wrong ones in the first place.

And if you go back to my original comment you will note i did not specify for you to change your wrong assumptions into other wrong assumptions, there are an unlimited supply of them but that is no reason to keep choosing them.

But I am sure this is far too complex for you to understand so let me provide an illustration, you assume truth is not simpler than lies when logically it has to be, but you base this assumption on looking at the lies made about the structure or nature of reality and because the more you look the less you see that matches the original assumption about what reality looks like, you think truth is getting more complicated, no. What is happening is that you are covering up one misrepresentations with more complex misrepresentations.

Have you read about Ptolemic picture of the universe and how it made truth look more and more complicated. It was based on a lie.

−1

ThemrocX t1_iqqr6kd wrote

Fair enough (edit: wrote this, before the previous post was desceptively edited), but then let's talk about ehy you think my assumptions are wrong.

5

apriorian t1_iqqxr9k wrote

Am I to understand you think people edit a book they write to deceive the reader? Can you not conceive of any other possible reason why editing might occur? I actually number my edits so i can keep track of all the versions, this year i edited my webside 107 times, yep just this year. Believe me, I do not edit to deceive. But of course you have your reality and I have mine.

(Warning: this is an edit) .. I may go back to a post three to five times because to do otherwise means the later addition comes before the previous or original comment. So while conspircy theories are fun the truth is usually simpler if more boring.

1

apriorian t1_iqqrwh5 wrote

You assume you can defeat any system. Why? Because you think you can outsmart any barriers to freeloading. Everyone likes this system because it permits cheating and everyone thinks they are winning more than losing... the house always wins in case you are wondering.

If I said lets cut the pie and pick a slice blindfolded you would agree because you assume you could peek, if i said you cut the pie and will will take turns choosing a slice with you being the last to pick, you would not agree because you could not cheat. Am I right?

0