The Universe Knows Right from Wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#91

Post by mannykannot » Sun, Sep 13, 2020, 5:27 PM UTC

Iv wrote: post #86

mannykannot wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but a measure of the phenomenon is not an explanation of how human societies came to have an ethical aspect. It is also possible that the metric is considering only one aspect of a society's ethical position, especially given that things like trolley problems, and some of the things that are done in the name of nominally ethical religions, suggest that people are not consistently rational in their ethical thin…

The idea is to not look at individual choices but at the aggregate of choices made and measure what mankind considers good.

The aggregate of choices is a consequence of what individuals choose, and to try to ignore that is to avoid the issues that determine the outcome.

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#92

Post by karmakaze » Sun, Sep 13, 2020, 6:12 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #35

TeMPOraL wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, doesn't make sense. I prefer a simpler argument for why there is a subset of morality that's universal for (vast majority of) humans: argument from shared brain architecture. We're essentially running the same wetware under the hood, at least on the time scales of human civilization. So while the universe doesn't necessarily privilege a set of values, human brains are . And that's all that really matters (until…

There is an even simpler explanation: some moral principles push people towards a game-theoretic optimum, so evolution selects for it. Eg, a society that allows random murders will be at a staggering disadvantage. By magic, most (all?) societies have strong moral arguments against murder. Ditto honesty - honest societies have structural advantages. Any cooperative species will have something that looks like morality.…

This is quite hand-wavy and not solidly founded. Some things that fall out from evolution align with advantages some do not. An example might be that 'allowing' a low rate of random murders may not have any practical difference in outcomes but humans are concerned with personal safety an a random event may apply to anyone so everyone (over) reacting would be the norm but not optimal in a game-theoretic sense. Negative bias leading to inaccurate judgements is such an example.

> cooperative species will have something that looks like morality

For the argument of the post to be valid, it has to apply to 'species' rather than a correlated subset.

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#93

Post by bawolff » Sun, Sep 13, 2020, 7:13 PM UTC

bobthechef wrote: post #77

bawolff wrote: post #15

Maybe im missing it, but the argument seems to be morality is objective because everyone thinks it is. How is that not begging the question? Then there are a bunch of pithy lines, which the author seems to treat as obvious in context revelations, but to me seem to utterly lack evidence/argument. > "No matter how the universe had turned out, two plus two would equal four and it would have been wrong to torture people…

> Maybe im missing it, but the argument seems to be morality is objective because everyone thinks it is. How is that not begging the question? Let's substitute morality with "facts". "Maybe I'm missing it, but the argument seems to be that facts are objective because everyone things they are. How is that not begging the question?" Begging the question only applies to demonstrable truths, not evident or self-evident t…

> The [objective] reality of morality is obvious

You really think so? I don't. To me this (that morality has some ground truth and isn't just some sort of subjective opinion in how people should behave) seems like an extraordinary claim that contradicts experience.

If morality is objective why can nobody, even in culturally homogonous groups, agree on what it means to be a good person?

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#94

Post by bawolff » Sun, Sep 13, 2020, 7:36 PM UTC

a1369209993 wrote: post #54

bawolff wrote: post #15

Maybe im missing it, but the argument seems to be morality is objective because everyone thinks it is. How is that not begging the question? Then there are a bunch of pithy lines, which the author seems to treat as obvious in context revelations, but to me seem to utterly lack evidence/argument. > "No matter how the universe had turned out, two plus two would equal four and it would have been wrong to torture people…

> Umm why? That seems non obvious to me. Because that's how they've defined the words "two", "four", "plus", "equals", "people", "torture", "for fun", and "wrong"? Neither of those statements makes any empirical claims about the physical arrangement of matter in the universe, so neither of them would be refuted by any possible way the universe could have turned out. > > Reality is essentially directed toward the form…

I agree with 2+2, i disagree with torture is fun. I don't think anything is implicit in the definition, and i can imagine a (very unpleasent) world where that is the case.

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#95

Post by mundo » Sun, Sep 13, 2020, 8:00 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #21

jjgreen wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think? I'd say that axioms were just taken; there's no commitment to their truth (since there is no need for it, and mathematics likes economy).

It also doesn't make sense to define axioms as true. What if later it turns out that the axioms were a mutual contradiction?

This might be a good time to look up the definition of axiom: "a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference".

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#96

Post by matz1 » Sun, Sep 13, 2020, 8:50 PM UTC

Drakim wrote: post #32

matz1 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because not everyone think the same. We are not machine where everyone run the same software. Some people like chocolate, some people hate chocolate. Likewise some people think murder is good, some people think its bad.

Humans are not a chaotic collection of random emotions and opinions. You'll find that those who like to eat dirt and murder others are far outnumbered by those who like chocolate and want to live in harmony.

Maybe outnumbered but still exists and still human.

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#97

Post by Ste_Evans » Mon, Sep 14, 2020, 1:53 AM UTC

ukj wrote: post #51

Ste_Evans wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the terms used in Mathematics are a tad more precise than those in natural language e.g. 1 is fairly clear, "moral" is not as clear. The reason Maths works is because it is based on intuitions (counting, space) that are presumably shadows of the physical world cast on the evolving brain via coarse perception. The effectiveness of Mathematics in Physics is probably not unreasonable at all.

Clear to whom? The meaning of "1" is conventional/socially constructed. For the sake of argument I can conveniently forget what "1" means, and then you can try and explain it to me like I am from another planet. Semantics are a non-trivial matter.

Clear to everyone but you. Maths has clear and precise concepts so logic can be successfully applied in Mathematical proofs with the validity remaining stable line after line. Attempts to do this in natural language, as Wittgenstein pointed out, tend to fail except in toy examples, as can be seen by this nonsense written by Goff. After the first 3 words of the title, "The universe knows..", we have no idea what he is on about and know we are dealing with a crank.

The universe, like Philip Goff, doesn't know anything.

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#98

Post by Iv » Mon, Sep 14, 2020, 3:26 AM UTC

mannykannot wrote: post #91

Iv wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea is to not look at individual choices but at the aggregate of choices made and measure what mankind considers good.

The aggregate of choices is a consequence of what individuals choose, and to try to ignore that is to avoid the issues that determine the outcome.

I am not sure how? Quite the contrary, stating that "good is what the society decides" is a way to solve contradictions in individual choices.

That's not my stance, btw, but that's a morality framework that is coherent.

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#99

Post by Iv » Mon, Sep 14, 2020, 3:31 AM UTC

ukj wrote: post #84

Iv wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do every "philosophical" debate ends up with "let's play semantic and never address the question being actually debated?" Philosophy is about answering real, deep questions, not about trying to find smart ways to pretend your interlocutor is confusing when defining a field that is characterized by the vagueness of the concepts it explores. Either make an effort to understand what your interlocutor mean or explici…

On the one hand you dislike semantics, on the other hand you want me to understand your meaning. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I am arguing that the social aspect of morality isn't about measurement, but about whose yardstick we should be using. Said differently: How do we calibrate our measurement instruments? Man is the measure of all things. --Protagoras.

Philosophers: arguing that morality can be objective while failing to agree on the meaning of words...

So to rephrase your objection, you think it is impossible to have an objective measurement of something in the human society? Are you arguing in practice or in theory?

Because right now this is a thought experiment, so for now we can assume perfect knowledge of what is happening within a society. You don't need instruments to calibrate, we are making a theoretical, philosophical point.

If we agree that it is possible in practice, then we can talk about how to implement it in our real, imperfect, partly unknown world but it is not even clear we are there yet.

> Man is the measure of all things. --Protagoras.

I don't know the context of the original quote, but in the context of that discussion, that's the negation of objective truth, something I disagree with. If that's your point of view, we have a core disagreement that's going to invalidate the rest of the discussion.

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#100

Post by mannykannot » Mon, Sep 14, 2020, 4:51 AM UTC

Iv wrote: post #98

mannykannot wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The aggregate of choices is a consequence of what individuals choose, and to try to ignore that is to avoid the issues that determine the outcome.

I am not sure how? Quite the contrary, stating that "good is what the society decides" is a way to solve contradictions in individual choices. That's not my stance, btw, but that's a morality framework that is coherent.

> I am not sure how? Quite the contrary, stating that "good is what the society decides" is a way to solve contradictions in individual choices.

It seems to me a way to avoid considering the contradictions in individual choices, which is where many of the interesting issues of ethics lie. This stance may be coherent in its own terms (and quantifiable, 'objective' and so forth), but I am skeptical that it yields much insight, and I think it is wise of you to not adopt it.

Does this stance offer any specific counter-arguments to the specific points I raised in my original post in this thread? Does it, for example, refute my claim that "a measure of the phenomenon is not an explanation of how human societies came to have an ethical aspect?"