All good derives from bad. Disincentives are everything. Deduction is more rigorous than induction.
I would say all good derives from good, and all bad derives from free will.
It depends on the definition of bad. To me, bad is the suffering of a consciousness. Good is the joy or love felt by a consciousness. However, we sometimes must choose the lesser of the bads. For example, suffering from the work done by a dentist is bad, but better than the consequences of not going to the dentist. Whether one individual should be made to suffer in order to prevent that individual from creating the suffering of others is another example in which the lesser of the bads must be decided. This is a judgement call, but suffering and bad is absolute. Good and bad are absolute but the relative importance when there is a mixture (there usually is a mixture) is a judgement call. The physical universe is capable of creating the conditions that cause suffering, but also capable of creating the conditions that produce joy and love. The physical universe is a mixture of good and bad.
The above are my thoughts. Sorry for sounding like a know-it-all. I’m not. Would like to hear other ideas.
Cosmin Visan
: This is a thread in which your thoughts might be appreciated. I might even appreciate them in spite of our mutual hostilities in other threads.
I'm intrigued about the "suffering comes from consciousness competing." Can you elaborate some?
Regarding what is real, this is what I think. The most indisputable of all proposed realities is that if I feel pain then I'm in pain. It doesn't matter if there is a physical explanation (e.g., an injury) or if it is in the category of just in my head, the pain is as real as real can be. Similarly with other perceptions from my five senses that create the image of what I call the physical universe. That I perceive is reality. The source of my perception (what I call the physical universe) might not be what I think it is (e.g., magicians are great at creating illusions) but it is reality that I perceived the image. The image is real although the source of the image is more questionable. This is as far as my thoughts go. If anyone agrees maybe they can continue the idea and figure out what kind of category to place this thing that I call the physical universe.
Maybe the physical universe should be taken to be the image instead of the source of the image. But then if different people have different perceptions then everyone has their own physical universe. I don't like that so a better idea will be appreciated.
Each person can have his own perceptions but there is a striking commonality. In addition to math, there is also physics. Admittedly, physics (as a discipline) changes as more is learned and mistakes are corrected, but what works for one person works just as well for another. For another example, different people looking at the same book read the same words. This commonality gives the source of the image some kind of substance.
I think I answered my own question. The above commonality gives the source of the images some kind of substance, i.e., an existence. I define the physical universe to be that source. It exists. I say "physical" universe to distinguish its images (that go through my five senses) from my perception of the existence of my own consciousness. That is a different kind of perception.
By the way, I take it as a postulate that other people have existence. In other words, they are not mere stage props created for me by my consciousness (as they are in my dreams). I can't prove this but I believe it. With this postulate, the above commonality has significance. It gives the source of the images an existence as previously stated.
Cosmin Visan
:"physics is the sociology of the consciousnesses behind atoms."An episode of the tv series on pbs called Closer to Truth gave that philosophy a name. I forgot the name but it is the belief that all matter has some consciousness. Not everyone subscribes to that philosophy.
Cosmin Visan
: I think the representation is more about how the physical brain works. But then physical brain versus consciousness is itself an issue of debate. My personal opinion (which I can't prove but I believe) is that they are completely different (consciousness is in a different universe, a spiritual universe) but still somehow intimately attached to each other. I have never yet been able to understand the connection (attachment) between them. I wish I did understand it.
Here is a question, that I don't know the answer to, that might interest people that believe, as I do, that consciousness is different from (though somehow connected to) the physical brain. There are people that can be called evil (like Hitler). The question is: Does the evil reside in the consciousness or the physical brain? If it resides in the physical brain and if (for the purpose of this hypothetical discussion) there is such a thing as heaven and hell, should Hitler's soul have gone to heaven? I don't think so, and maybe the best reasoning is that there is this intimate (though mysterious) connection between consciousness and the physical brain. I wish I understood that connection.
Karl Pfeifer : "How about: good and bad both derive from preference orderings?"
How about: the lesser of the bads, or greater of the goods (a comparison which involves ordering), are derived from preference ordering.
L.D. Edmonds Indeed. I regard that as an implicit feature since the comparatives (more, less) can apply adverbially to the adjectives "good" and "bad".
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381430297_RESPECTFULLY_Quantum_Entanglement_Reincarnation