Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'The Best of All Possible Worlds' Review: Leibniz Lives Again

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 66 posts

Re: 'The Best of All Possible Worlds' Review: Leibniz Lives Again

#51

Post by MichaelZuo »

allturtles wrote: post #46
dotancohen wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't know that the child wouldn't have grown up Hitler. The argument seems similar - not exactly, but similar - to the question "if global warming is real, why is it snowing here". A function describing the maximum global integration over happiness could very well contain many local minima.

Yes, but an omnipotent God could presumably just make Hitlers not exist. The argument rests on the assumption that there are hidden dependencies in the laws of the universe, such that it was logically necessary that Hitler (or insert whatever other evil here) had to exist to make the best possible world. That's hard to swallow.

This seems to be assuming omnipotence is not just a fantasy?

More likely they were operating under significant constraints…

Re: 'The Best of All Possible Worlds' Review: Leibniz Lives Again

#52

Post by hks0 »

thesz wrote: post #45
hks0 wrote: post #8

> Leibniz challenged “humanity to participate in the work of striving toward perfection,” > Because the world is the creation of a perfect being, it can achieve only the “best possible” state short of divine perfection. That's a lot of presumptions: That the creator is perfect, there is even a perfect, what I (Leibniz) call perfect is the god's/gods' perfect, ... while not giving a frame of reference. I find this a c…

I think you will be pleasantly amused by this marriage of logic and religious beliefs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_pro... It is formally proven that an entity that encompass all qualities of a God must exist.

Very interesting read, Thanks!

If I'm reading that article correctly, the criticism to Gödel is the same criticism I had for Leibniz:

> A proof does not necessitate that the conclusion be correct, but rather that by accepting the axioms, the conclusion follows logically.

> Many philosophers have called the axioms into question.

Re: 'The Best of All Possible Worlds' Review: Leibniz Lives Again

#53

Post by mdp2021 »

allturtles wrote: post #46
dotancohen wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't know that the child wouldn't have grown up Hitler. The argument seems similar - not exactly, but similar - to the question "if global warming is real, why is it snowing here". A function describing the maximum global integration over happiness could very well contain many local minima.

Yes, but an omnipotent God could presumably just make Hitlers not exist. The argument rests on the assumption that there are hidden dependencies in the laws of the universe, such that it was logically necessary that Hitler (or insert whatever other evil here) had to exist to make the best possible world. That's hard to swallow.

> an omnipotent ... could

The Architect in Leibniz is not omnipotent, and can only make the best out of what is possible.

Re: 'The Best of All Possible Worlds' Review: Leibniz Lives Again

#54

Post by ptsneves »

I need to plug “why evil exists” [1] as it was where I first learned about Leibniz and how he framed the renascentist period as one where men got closer to God through progress, until shook by the Lisbon earthquake. It is in audiobook form and starts with Gilgamesh all the way to pope Benedict XVI.

[1] https://books.google.pl/books/about/Why_Evil_Exists.html?id=...

Re: 'The Best of All Possible Worlds' Review: Leibniz Lives Again

#55

Post by Tossrock »

CannonSlugs wrote: post #4

> In such a way, Leibniz, to cite Milton, dared to “justify the ways of God to men.” Voltaire responded with a snarky misreading that exploited the undeniable empirical fact that evil was not balanced by good in the lives of every discreet individual. But Leibniz made no such claim. The best world was optimized as a whole, containing just as much good and evil as was required for the totality of creation. I like this…

Unsong has a pretty novel take on it.

Re: 'The Best of All Possible Worlds' Review: Leibniz Lives Again

#56

Post by benlivengood »

graemep wrote: post #28
CannonSlugs wrote: post #4

> In such a way, Leibniz, to cite Milton, dared to “justify the ways of God to men.” Voltaire responded with a snarky misreading that exploited the undeniable empirical fact that evil was not balanced by good in the lives of every discreet individual. But Leibniz made no such claim. The best world was optimized as a whole, containing just as much good and evil as was required for the totality of creation. I like this…

> My question has rather been that, if suffering is required and a child getting bone cancer and dying at five is the best of all possible worlds, maybe the whole project should have been scrapped at the planning phase. Is that better? it would also require not having all the good things from creation.

Nah, just create the world at a state where modern medicine can cure cancer, like we're on the slow road to doing.

In the 1800s someone might have asked "if suffering is required and a child is going to die of a systemic infection, maybe the whole project should have been scrapped at the planning phase".

To me it's clear that human flourishing without much suffering is possible in this universe and it's more about knowledge and power to prevent suffering being hard to come by. The kind of knowledge that e.g. could have been written down in ancient religious books or whatever if we had a best possible world.

Re: 'The Best of All Possible Worlds' Review: Leibniz Lives Again

#57

Post by allturtles »

mdp2021 wrote: post #53
allturtles wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but an omnipotent God could presumably just make Hitlers not exist. The argument rests on the assumption that there are hidden dependencies in the laws of the universe, such that it was logically necessary that Hitler (or insert whatever other evil here) had to exist to make the best possible world. That's hard to swallow.

> an omnipotent ... could The Architect in Leibniz is not omnipotent, and can only make the best out of what is possible.

I think you are just restating what I said. Yes, Leibniz and any of his defenders must assume that there are hidden constraints to what is possible that lie beyond human understanding that made Hitler (just to use a very salient example, but insert whatever evil you like), necessary to achieve a greater good. It is ultimately an argument from faith (just trust in God, he had the best for the world at heart) that can only be accepted by those who already believe.

Re: 'The Best of All Possible Worlds' Review: Leibniz Lives Again

#58

Post by mdp2021 »

allturtles wrote: post #57
mdp2021 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an omnipotent ... could The Architect in Leibniz is not omnipotent, and can only make the best out of what is possible.

I think you are just restating what I said. Yes, Leibniz and any of his defenders must assume that there are hidden constraints to what is possible that lie beyond human understanding that made Hitler (just to use a very salient example, but insert whatever evil you like), necessary to achieve a greater good. It is ultimately an argument from faith (just trust in God, he had the best for the world at heart) that can…

I meant that it is explicit, not just an assumption but the very metaphysics. A Logos is thought as predominant over the Agent that uses it. (Otherwise, it would be logical to have perfection and only perfection immediately.)

> an argument from faith

I think it remains (it was intended to be) a logical argument from the very definitions (not from devotional faith).

--

Edit: sorry, but I realize I misremembered a few important details, that could make the above quite misleading...

Leibniz speaks of full omnipotence. So, that Logos is not "above" Divinity in an ontological sense, but in a purely logical sense. I.e. it was impossible to do differently as this is "the best possible plan", not "the best achievable".

> we are not well enough acquainted with the general harmony of the universe and of the hidden reasons for his conduct; and that makes people recklessly judge that many things could have been improved [... // ...] to know in detail his reasons for ordering the universe as he has, allowing sin, and granting his saving grace in one way rather than another, is beyond the power of a finite mind

~~ Leibniz, Discourse on Metaphysics(1686)

Re: 'The Best of All Possible Worlds' Review: Leibniz Lives Again

#59

Post by aspenmayer »

sswaner wrote: post #26
medo-bear wrote: post #18

history keeps repeating, so often that there is no tragedy left, just farce i give it 5 more years till hegel becomes popular. 10 more years till dialectical materialism and dictatorship of proletariat

Or 2 years for Heidegger?

Final Fantasy VII and it’s remakes have done their part.

Re: 'The Best of All Possible Worlds' Review: Leibniz Lives Again

#60

Post by layman51 »

dotancohen wrote: post #43
cocacola1 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t see the good being contingent on a five year old getting bone cancer.

You don't know that the child wouldn't have grown up Hitler. The argument seems similar - not exactly, but similar - to the question "if global warming is real, why is it snowing here". A function describing the maximum global integration over happiness could very well contain many local minima.

I might be misinterpreting Leibniz’s central argument, but doesn’t the idea of the best of all possible worlds not depend on how humans (or any kind of life really) perceive it? This is similar to the idea that an unaligned AI agent could get its own idea of “best world”.

Also, I get the impression that in modern times, people fall away from religion because they can’t explain why God allows evil in a satisfactory way. But in the distant historical past, they were more motivated to reason or figure out why God intentionally causes evil things to happen.

Post reply on HN