Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Optimistic Nihilism (2017)

tinyclouds.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 87 posts

Re: Optimistic Nihilism (2017)

#51

Post by Zeta_Function »

stcredzero wrote: post #44
Avshalom wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entropic heat death of the universe comes more from the notion that R=1 is implied by the conservation of energy and so while the universe might stop expanding at t=∞ the average energy of any particle at that time will be 0. if R>1 same thing but faster. The other option is that we all die and then the universe collapses... which is just as final for anything hanging around as heat death would be.

The entropic heat death of the universe comes more from the notion that R=1 is implied by the conservation of energy {facepalm} Physicists already know that on the scales of the universe, there is no conservation of energy. I hate to break it to you folks, but most of you are dead wrong about conservation laws. Conservation laws are a fundamental part of your education, but they are not a fundamental part of the univ…

You’re not wrong, but you’re not a good teacher either. Rudeness and mockery don’t add anything, and in fact take away from your ability to inform people. You’re also only half right, insofar as nobody knows is a very accurate statement. You’re wrong however, that conservation laws definitely don’t apply. We just don’t know if they do, and there are reasons to believe (you reference Noether’s theorem) why they might not. The truth is, “Nobody knows” with a period and a full stop.

It’s also worth pointing out that universal expansion has an effect only on distance scales larger than galaxies. There is no reason to believe it will pull apart smaller structures, never mind subatomic ones. It’s a popular misconception that the expanding force is great on small distance scales. On the scale of a galaxy, that force is overcome by gravity, so needless to say the Strong force won’t even notice it.

Tl;DR Metric expansion is a powerful cumulative force on giant distance scales, weak on small (below galaxies) scales. Galaxies, stellar systems, stars, and Hadrons will be just fine, thanks.

If you’re going to scold people, you could at least be right. It is also a good idea not to rely on just YouTube videos for your arguments.

Re: Optimistic Nihilism (2017)

#52

Post by throwawayjava »

toren wrote: post #47
ahussain wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess one of the problems with Peterson (and also with people like Zizek) is that he manages to say some completely indefensible things (i.e. he seems to tie so many of the world's problems to "liberal professors in the universities"), while also managing to say some very poignant and insightful things that do genuinely improve one's thinking. I think the second part is the reason why he has built up such a large f…

Exactly. One doesn't have to agree with every single thing he says to find something of value in his ideas. Similarly, it's idiotic to discard his entire set of ideas because you have found some disagreements.

No, I think that's exactly the opposite of the right take-away re: how to think critically about the output of "scholar-celebrity" types. With both him and Zizek, it's idiotic to take their less well-based ideas at face value (ESPECIALLY if you find yourself knee-jerk agreeing with those ideas) just because they manage to say smart and well-informed things from time to time. Zizek knows lots about Lacan and also says lots of stupid random shit for the book sales. Peterson knows a lot about Nietzsche and also says lots of stupid random shit for the book sales. Same game, different customer.

(The signal-noise ratio on scholar-celebrities is so out of whack that simply ignoring them isn't a terrible heuristic, unless you're more interested in communication theory and marketing strategies than the subjects they're purportedly discussing.)

Re: Optimistic Nihilism (2017)

#53

Post by Avshalom »

state_less wrote: post #45
Avshalom wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a side note--and I stole this idea from an essay that I thought was by Asimov called the Scientist and the Sage but: 400 or 1000 years ago there were still basically three possible predictions: the universe will end; the universe is infinite; the universe will cycle. It is then trivial to find philosophers who take one of those notions as a cornerstone of their philosophy and thus absolutely have a conceptual fram…

What if the universe doesn't end, or at least hasn't appeared to yet, and yet you're not sure if it's infinite. Like a computer that may halt, but you can't decide if it will or not. I hope you don't upset the operator and have the simulator suspended with this bickering about what it is. :)

Well if you believe in a god all bets are off, including whatever conception of god you believe in.

Re: Optimistic Nihilism (2017)

#54

Post by Avshalom »

stcredzero wrote: post #48
Avshalom wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a) math, even if not entropic heat death, a basic grasp of history show that 99.999...% of our lives are meaningless after some cut off. b)I am specifically claiming that while "nothing means anything" is the--lie that tells the truth--summation of nihilism it, by it's very nature, doesn't imply a course of action. So it doesn't matter how metaphysical of a claim it is.

a basic grasp of history show that 99.999...% of our lives are meaningless after some cut off Why shouldn't we be grateful to the totality of our ancestors for getting us this far? Who is to say that we could change even a butterfly wing's flutter of the distant past and still have everything turn out as now? b)I am specifically claiming that while "nothing means anything" is the--lie that tells the truth--summation…

why shouldn't we resent the totality of our ancestors?

Re: Optimistic Nihilism (2017)

#55

Post by bobthechef »

undoware wrote: post #11

This is a fantastic sample of the sort of romantic philosophizing that animates the technosphere. It elides from some reasonable, nineteenth-century claims about atheism and materialsm to full-on AI worship without a moment's hesitation or reflection. It uses ecological and physiological fragility to justify the headlong embrace of more durable, synthetic minds -- as though all that were valuable about the human expe…

I'm not going to address all of your post, but I will agree with one thing: the technosphere is full of bullshit artistry and quack philosophy stated with an air of authority so incorrigibly solemn, it moves marble busts to laughter. It seems people in tech, and elsewhere, believe that philosophy is just some shit you make up without having to really think through and verify anything you've said or see what others have written on the subject. All you need is to watch some crackpot's Youtube video to give you the confidence to play the wise man.

Philosophy, dear children, is a branch of knowledge that, like other branches of knowledge, requires lots of study and dedication if you're going to be any good at it. "Philosophy" is not a synonym for "here's my poorly thought through opinion".

Re: Optimistic Nihilism (2017)

#56

Post by Buddyzv »

ahussain wrote: post #29
knuththetruth wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peterson is a con artist who appeals to desperate and impressionable men that can’t be bothered to read the Nietzsche and Jung that he only skims for sound bites.

It is a shame that people cannot engage substantively with Jordan Peterson's decent arguments because of his tendency to be inflammatory. What exactly about his argument that nihilism is "the easy way out" is problematic?

are u with or against!

Re: Optimistic Nihilism (2017)

#57

Post by state_less »

Avshalom wrote: post #53
state_less wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the universe doesn't end, or at least hasn't appeared to yet, and yet you're not sure if it's infinite. Like a computer that may halt, but you can't decide if it will or not. I hope you don't upset the operator and have the simulator suspended with this bickering about what it is. :)

Well if you believe in a god all bets are off, including whatever conception of god you believe in.

Take it easy, I just wanted to put forth another position, that of not knowing.

Re: Optimistic Nihilism (2017)

#59

Post by eli_gottlieb »

>The consequence of this understanding? You are the rarest of rare matter in the universe. You are much more precious than gold. You are the type of matter that can walk and discuss and build.

That doesn't sound nihilistic to me at all.

>Some worry that an artificial consciousnesses could turn against humans. I am not concerned about this. First of all, we are many years away from such technology. The "AI" that I deal with in my research is so laughably far from consciousness, it's like worrying about lawnmowers turning against us. But this meme has gotten enough attention that I want to address it: supposing that somehow we created an artificial consciousness that was able to spontaneously improve itself and escape from our control: are we doomed?

Oh God, this is painful, please stop.

Re: Optimistic Nihilism (2017)

#60

Post by Avshalom »

state_less wrote: post #57
Avshalom wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if you believe in a god all bets are off, including whatever conception of god you believe in.

Take it easy, I just wanted to put forth another position, that of not knowing.

No, no. That's the thing: if we have no fucking clue-- "not knowing"-- we have no direction or guidance and thus no way to distinguish (globally) good versus bad and we end up running off what "we" feel is right. And yeah that can lead Hitler but it can equally lead to MLK Jr.

Again I'm not saying Nihilism is "good" I'm just saying it doesn't necessarily lead to one set of morals, and what ever you allow it to lead you to can infact be almost congruent with Abraham or Quetzalcoatl or whatever.

Post reply on HN