best regards
nico martirelli

——- 1. How can “goodness” have a number? ——-
In the first argument, the value of “g” is a stated universal quality of “goodness”, which apparently holds for all time past, present, and future. Assuming that the Big Bang theory is accurate in predicting the birth-date of the universe, we’ll say that everything is 14 billion years old, and given its rate of expansion, will naturally continue to exist for at least another 14 billion years (our universe is, by all cosmological estimation, relatively young). Further assuming that “goodness” extends beyond our own planet and solar system, we can say that the amount of “goodness”, a subjective quality which you have failed to constrain, reaches infinitely in all directions for all time. For the sake of an argument, I’ll be polite and simply assume that this supposed “goodness” will, given enough time, reach an immeasurably large value.

Now, you’ve used a “total destruction” failure probability of 1 billionth, which is 1×10^-8… now, it’s been theorized that the probability of unintentionally creating a “mini black hole” is in fact close to this value, but the odds that such a black hole would result in a cataclysmic destruction of the universe are… well, nil. They (black holes) already exist, and they’re not hurting anything.

But again, for the sake of argument, I’ll assume that your number is correct, a 1×10^-8 chance of annihilation. You’ve failed to set up a relative scale on orders of magnitude for your “goodness” assessment, which leaves the reader to (inappropriately) view “one billionth” as a minute quantity, when it may in fact be many, -many- orders of magnitude larger than its 1*10^-8 scalar would lead them to believe.

To put it more simply, you are relating two incomparable quantities in an equation, and in doing so, are trying to compare apples to galaxies. The subjectivity of this argument renders any sort of “math”, intentionally enclosed in quotation marks, a fuzzy proposition at best.

——- 2. Assumption #6 is unfounded ——-
Where did you get this information, and what are you using to quantify the level of “goodness” from observing the results of the LHC?

Again, I see a problem with the method of quantification employed here.

——- 3. The “better safe than sorry” argument ——-
I fail to see the logic in assuming this, even from a general ethics standpoint. If -not- doing something would result in no benefit, and -doing- something with inherent risk would result in some benefit, then a risk-benefit comparison is appropriate. However, I’m not sure you’ve sufficiently elaborated on the benefits, and have instead have placed numerological quality only on the risks.

——- 4. By this argument, humans should commit geno-suicide ——-
The third and final argument implies that anything risking the destruction of an environment from which any subjective “goodness” could be derived is, by nature, a risk worth avoiding.

If this is the case, I am genuinely puzzled as to why you leave your house, touch foreign objects, or exist at all. By your own argument, in driving to work, you have placed an unacceptable risk on those around you and have elevated the chance of their “goodness” being diminished or destroyed by your risky actions. Since this becomes recursive from the perspective of another person, the simple solution would be for humanity to quietly commit suicide and allow the universe to exist alone, unencumbered by our risky ways.

————–
The truth of the matter is that, no matter how infinitesimally small it may be, there will -always- be risks involved in -any- action. The actions of these scientists have not been demonstrated to affect the global or universal quality of “goodness” on the scale that these assumptions portray. Using pseudo-mathematics as a scare-tactic to drum up ethos for an argument is, at best, a distraction from the point at hand, which is the cost/benefit analysis of such an experiment.

Perhaps you can help shed some light on why this “math” is valid. I’ll appreciate any sort of help in understanding.