How do you judge what is good or bad using the Theory of Complexity ?!

[warhound]

Going by Khader's theory on complexity, essentially anything that faciliates the movement to greater complexity is good, anythign that slows or dampens movement is bad.

How do moral issues like prostitution/porn/drugs fit into this theory. and how does one judge if they are good or bad just using his complexity theory.

[Andy]

That's an interesting question, warhound. (  Welcome to the forum by the way.  )

I'd not really given the moral implications any thought, mostly because I think as you point out they are absent from Shantaram(?). Well, as far as I can recall, there is no connection between the theory of complexity and any moral issues.

I'm no philosopher, so my best guess would be that the actions that promote complexity are inherently good morally? I.e War is divisive, drugs/prostitution is exploitative and isolating, hence they do not lead to greater complexity/harmony. That's sounds a bit flakey at best, but I'll give it some more thought.

It does appear though that the theory itself is the basis on which judgement is made, in effect the complexity is all that is good. That makes it quite difficult to analyse, because it is not a system of thought but a two point reference system. Not much wiggle room.

Now, as I said I'm no philosopher, so there could be other implications.

Perhaps other members might have an idea how the complexity theory relates to the moral issues in Shantaram?

Certainly there are some serious points that need consideration, as Khader himself was involved with War, and ultimately sanctioned murder to support his own means. How indeed are those actions explained within his own philosophical system? Interesting.. 

[warhound]

Wow.. I'm surprised by the fast response ! thanks.

I am slightly confused as to their discussion. If I recall correctly Lin was essentially digging what in Khader's opinion was 'right' or 'wrong' in life.

If this "right and wrong" wasn't his moral standing then what else was he reffering to ?

[Andy]

Hmm.. not sure Do you have page numbers for the particular discussion you're reffering to? I'd like to have a look over it and get back to you.

[warhound]

Sorry, was out of the country on work.

ok, the conversation he has with kader khan is on page 480, where according to his logic.. everythign that assists towards a complexity is good, anything opposing it is bad. He states an example i think of stealing. if everyone steals there would be anarchy hence its bad.

But what about common decisions, such as pornography ?! if everyone watched pornography it wouldnt cause any harm to society, its a personal moral view.

[Andy]

No problem! Nice to see you back.

Give me a day or two to read that section (if the page number isn't correct to my edition, I should be able to find it from your description) and I'll come back and we can chew it over.

[serenity]

The way I understood or rather interpreted - good or evil as explained in Shantaram is by considering what will happen if everybody in the world does the same deed over and over.

Personally good and bad or right or wrong depends on each person's value system or principles. Something that is good for one can have a potential to be bad for another depending on the circumstances one has gone through in life.

[Jonathan]

The thing enoying me about this theory is that is doesn´t match with the laws of Thermodynamics. According to Abderkhai the complexity of the universe is suppose to increase - well, on a local scale (meaning on earth) it does, but universially it is constantly decreasing. For any of you who have ever studied physics it´s you would know it as "the second law of thermodynamics" and it reads: The entropy of the universe is constantly increasing. This is not a theory - it is proved by expriments on equillibriumtheory. Anyways, without getting too "physical", what I wanted to say is: the fundament on which Khader bases his theory is incorrect and therefore it can not be used to judge an action.

JB

[Infernal Lubber]

Aha! A crack appears in the mighty Roberts philosophy. Oh well. It did sound too good to be true. Not that I've been staying up nights wondering about it.

On a human level, though, the movement towards complexity as a measure of goodness seems to make some sense. Perhaps his mistake was trying to universalize it.

Perhaps we should just rely on intuition to tell us whether an action is good or not.

[Andy]

I didn't know that, Jonathan, but I'll take it as sound knowledge.

[Toveri]

Hi everybody! I recently found this forum and find this discussion very interesting and I'm especially impressed by Jonathan's point about the laws of thermodynamics. I certainly take your point but it raises many questions that could be of further interest as well. The laws of thermodynamics oppose Khaderbhai's statement of everything's movement towards complexity but, since thermodynamics mostly is about energy, can we still find a connection to the moral issues of right or wrong? And is entropy necessarily the opposite of complexity? What do you think?