>>17458368If redemption is a natural occurrence within the order of the cosmos, what use is the law then? Perhaps self preservation could be justification for interference in "God's plan", or the belief that by alignment with the "greater good"
In this example, law would be a simulation of the form of cosmic justice. As the personification of justice too seeks to simulate the spirit of justice, the law seeks to create a workable body, framework of justice.
If that then is true, and alignment with a universal structure of "justice" is possible, how then could we know without a doubt or iota of subjectivity that we are indeed enacting justice as per that structure?
Well the form of justice must firstly be enacted by noble men.
Modern courtrooms seek "justice by a group of peers". The jury is the ultimate decision maker... what if the jury itself has been subverted, suggested into believing that which is not true or aligned with said justice?
A jury of peers may also find to nullify the law itself to be just, which is a form of meta narrative. You are correct a group of jurors may be corrupted, compromised or hold bias or prejudices towards the defendant. It is an imperfect form of judgement.
>Imagine if you as a person, or group of persons as an institution could control what believe believe is moral, what is good and right, and what exemplifies justice.That is already the case, hence cultural differences in the justice system. Oaths are sworn on the bible in court. Though religious courts exclusive to Judaism or Islam exist as well.
>This is the exact thing I was saying when pointing to modern day influencers and op-controllers, and the way that mass media affects the human brain in real time.>An entity so inclined could very easily change what we think - what we believe we think. An AI would make such a pursuit all the more viable.Bryan Johnson is the singularity
