Of course there are more worlds. You didn’t even talk about baseball.
Baseball, of course, is a world unto itself. If you merely knew of atoms, math, and consciousness, you wouldn’t understand what it really meant to hit a sac fly with runners on two and three[1]. Imagine trying to explain baseball to a virus. Okay, yeah, you could do it, but the virus wouldn’t thereby be motivated to play baseball—just like the virus wouldn’t “really understand” why suffering mattered if your mere explanation didn’t cause it to care about suffering[2].
Now, you might not think baseball is as important as math or consciousness. But of course, that’s what you’d say if you were missing out on another world! Structurally, baseball[3] obeys the rules.
(If we pretend we’re not counting being able to build a model of the world based on senses/atoms that already has a simple representation of atoms/math/consciousness/baseball.)
(Since we’ve defined suffering as some stuff that’s intrinsically motivating to us, it can feel like the motivatingness is an intrinsic property of the suffering, so if we really get the virus to think about the same stuff it will by definition be motivated.)
Sure, arguably there are separate things like games, and rights, and art, and honor, and so forth. I was trying to define things in a relatively minimalist way, and interested in something like an escalating hierarchy of clearly different worlds rather than seriously consider things all the emergent stuff or things that are in between.
Of course there are more worlds. You didn’t even talk about baseball.
Baseball, of course, is a world unto itself. If you merely knew of atoms, math, and consciousness, you wouldn’t understand what it really meant to hit a sac fly with runners on two and three[1]. Imagine trying to explain baseball to a virus. Okay, yeah, you could do it, but the virus wouldn’t thereby be motivated to play baseball—just like the virus wouldn’t “really understand” why suffering mattered if your mere explanation didn’t cause it to care about suffering[2].
Now, you might not think baseball is as important as math or consciousness. But of course, that’s what you’d say if you were missing out on another world! Structurally, baseball[3] obeys the rules.
(If we pretend we’re not counting being able to build a model of the world based on senses/atoms that already has a simple representation of atoms/math/consciousness/baseball.)
(Since we’ve defined suffering as some stuff that’s intrinsically motivating to us, it can feel like the motivatingness is an intrinsic property of the suffering, so if we really get the virus to think about the same stuff it will by definition be motivated.)
(Or rather, the ontology we use for baseball.)
Sure, arguably there are separate things like games, and rights, and art, and honor, and so forth. I was trying to define things in a relatively minimalist way, and interested in something like an escalating hierarchy of clearly different worlds rather than seriously consider things all the emergent stuff or things that are in between.