This is an interesting metaphysical string of thought. Of course, we are ascribing it human creations like "good" and "evil".
We know that the physical nature of the universe lends itself towards entropy, which will likely ultimately culminate in a universal state of thermodynamic equilibrium without some yet unknown interventional process.
We do know of one process that seriously disrupts the regular procession of entropy: Life. Life adds energy to different parts of it's process to balance entropy as it requires; typically to suit it's primary purpose of propagating. This, defacto, makes life as we know it the counter-ballast or perhaps even the mandatory counter force to thermodynamic entropy on a physical scale. This rationale was used to form an argument that Life may actually be a physical imperative of the universe.
So, would you say it is more "evil" to counter the natural physical inclination of the universe? Or to allow it? Perhaps darkness is the preferred state of the entire system, so is life "evil" for forcefully disrupting this state?
Forget light. Light is just energetic particles ready to be used in other reactions.
|