The Universe Knows Right from Wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#101

Post by ukj » Mon, Sep 14, 2020, 2:37 PM UTC

Iv wrote: post #99

ukj wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inst…

Everything can be measured in principle and in practice.

Are you hungry? Yes.

That trivial question/answer exchange allowed me to measure 1 bit of information about your state or hunger.

Measurement isn’t the difficulty. Objectivity is the difficulty.

For a measurement to become “objective” it requires inter-subjective consensus.

Disagreement is the thing which hinders consensus.

And there is plenty of disagreement to go around when it comes to measuring things like “health”.

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#102

Post by amelius » Mon, Sep 14, 2020, 9:21 PM UTC

mundo wrote: post #95

amelius wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Yes, but I think that's "accepted" in the sense of "until we run into a contradiction", at which point you have to start over with new axioms. I.e. it turned out your axioms weren't all true.

I think that in the definition you gave "accepted" should be replaced by "assumed".

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#103

Post by Iv » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 11:42 AM UTC

ukj wrote: post #101

Iv wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inst…

Everything can be measured in principle and in practice. Are you hungry? Yes. That trivial question/answer exchange allowed me to measure 1 bit of information about your state or hunger. Measurement isn’t the difficulty. Objectivity is the difficulty. For a measurement to become “objective” it requires inter-subjective consensus. Disagreement is the thing which hinders consensus. And there is plenty of disagreement t…

The atoms that compose your body are going in random directions right now, at pretty high speed, that's what create temperature. Many of your atoms go in totally opposite directions at any given time. Even drawing the line in the set of atoms that is you is ambiguous at each breath.

Yet, it does not sound far-fetched an idea that you have an objectively measurable vertical speed relative to the ground and that it would be safer to maintain that speed under a current level?

Consumers all attach different subjective values to objects, yet, markets converge on a price that is considered consensual, yet almost everyone disagrees on the consensus reached. This is because there is a consensus not in the result, but in the process that leads to that result.

Morality in societies are similar: No one is exactly aligned with everyone else on moral questions, yet, the general state of affairs results in a consensual compromise that can be measured in the same way that you can measure the market price of an item by confronting buyers and sellers.

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#104

Post by Iv » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 11:54 AM UTC

mannykannot wrote: post #100

Iv wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> but I am skeptical that it yields much insight

It allowed economist for instance to measure that the price US society is willing to pay to avoid the loss of one random American life is about 8 million USD. I think this is a valuable insight.

As for your last paragraph, I think you can truncate it: "a measure of the phenomenon is not an explanation". I agree, but I am not sure why this is a relevant point. We are talking about ethics, not the history of ethics. Understanding virus biology won't necessarily explain virus evolution to you but is still valuable.

As for your other earlier point, I am not sure I understand your criticism. Economics has proven that many human decisions are irrational or rationally bounded. It is pretty certain that ethics is no different. Why would it make it incapable of producing worthy results?

I am not sure but you seem to assume that "ethics" is a quantity that I propose to measure through a single number. This is not what I am proposing. I think ethics is a domain as large as economics in which some phenomenon can be identified.

I am also proposing that people could then use the ethical models produced as a moral guide and have a coherent morality (but a conservative one: customs and normalcy define "good") and reach it through an objective process.

I consider myself a progressist, so this is not the morality I will adopt, but I recognize that this is a worthy endeavor nonetheless. If only to measure ethical progress within a society.

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#105

Post by mannykannot » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 2:05 PM UTC

Iv wrote: post #104

mannykannot wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> but I am skeptical that it yields much insight It allowed economist for instance to measure that the price US society is willing to pay to avoid the loss of one random American life is about 8 million USD. I think this is a valuable insight. As for your last paragraph, I think you can truncate it: "a measure of the phenomenon is not an explanation". I agree, but I am not sure why this is a relevant point. We are ta…

>> but I am skeptical that it yields much insight

> It allowed economist for instance to measure that the price US society is willing to pay to avoid the loss of one random American life is about 8 million USD. I think this is a valuable insight.

I see that I was not specific enough, and should have written, "I am skeptical that it yields much insight into the origins of morality and the article author's claim that it is a universal property." I am still doubtful that this observation of current utility provides much insight into the issue that was both the subject of this essay, and of the specific post that you originally replied to.

> I am not sure but you seem to assume that "ethics" is a quantity that I propose to measure through a single number.

While it is clear now that you have a much more thoroughly developed position, it was the only example given in your original post.

We seem to be talking at cross-purposes here, so let me say that I am not questioning the utility of these metrics, but I do not see them as leading to any particular conclusion about the origin and ubiquity of ethics and moral behavior. On rereading your original post in the light of what you have written since, I now take it that your points there are a) morality is something that is built by mankind (as opposed to being universal in the sense that the essay author argues for?); b) the way to find out what a society's ethics are is to measure what it does (as opposed to accepting that its values are what it says they are?) and c) with objective measurements, we can continue to build a better, more effectve morality. If so, I am in complete agreement with b) and share your hope for c). With regard to a), personally I lean more towards TeMPOral's and roenxi's speculation that initial concepts of right and wrong evolved alongside the abilities of self-aware consciousness and the ability to develop a theory of mind, but I am aware that this is just armchair speculation.

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#106

Post by ukj » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 7:48 PM UTC

Iv wrote: post #103

ukj wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything can be measured in principle and in practice. Are you hungry? Yes. That trivial question/answer exchange allowed me to measure 1 bit of information about your state or hunger. Measurement isn’t the difficulty. Objectivity is the difficulty. For a measurement to become “objective” it requires inter-subjective consensus. Disagreement is the thing which hinders consensus. And there is plenty of disagreement t…

The atoms that compose your body are going in random directions right now, at pretty high speed, that's what create temperature. Many of your atoms go in totally opposite directions at any given time. Even drawing the line in the set of atoms that is you is ambiguous at each breath. Yet, it does not sound far-fetched an idea that you have an objectively measurable vertical speed relative to the ground and that it wou…

That is a rather reductionist answer.

Did you purposefully ignore my question?

Holistically speaking, how do you propose we measure “health”?

What sort of market compromise do you have in mind with regards to said measurement?

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#107

Post by Iv » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 6:43 AM UTC

mannykannot wrote: post #105

Iv wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I am skeptical that it yields much insight It allowed economist for instance to measure that the price US society is willing to pay to avoid the loss of one random American life is about 8 million USD. I think this is a valuable insight. As for your last paragraph, I think you can truncate it: "a measure of the phenomenon is not an explanation". I agree, but I am not sure why this is a relevant point. We are ta…

>> but I am skeptical that it yields much insight > It allowed economist for instance to measure that the price US society is willing to pay to avoid the loss of one random American life is about 8 million USD. I think this is a valuable insight. I see that I was not specific enough, and should have written, "I am skeptical that it yields much insight into the origins of morality and the article author's claim that i…

You are correct with my positions.

About a) we are not necessarily in disagreement, we just probably talk about different aspects of morality. I am personally not a believer of objective morality but find that the closest we can get to is that "mankind's morality", which can be argued to be at the root of collective decisions like laws and judgements.

You are talking about individual morality, a related but different thing and indeed, collective morality spawns from individual morality so it is unlikely to give insights about individual morality's origin.

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#108

Post by Iv » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 6:56 AM UTC

ukj wrote: post #106

Iv wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The atoms that compose your body are going in random directions right now, at pretty high speed, that's what create temperature. Many of your atoms go in totally opposite directions at any given time. Even drawing the line in the set of atoms that is you is ambiguous at each breath. Yet, it does not sound far-fetched an idea that you have an objectively measurable vertical speed relative to the ground and that it wou…

That is a rather reductionist answer. Did you purposefully ignore my question? Holistically speaking, how do you propose we measure “health”? What sort of market compromise do you have in mind with regards to said measurement?

You are on a tech forum. Reductionism is pretty much the norm here. Any programmer that has toyed with chaotic system theory can imagine holist views as explained by emergent behaviors of simpler systems.

> Did you purposefully ignore my question?

No, actually I had to rewrite my answer enitrely 4 or 5 times to avoid talking past each other, as it is clear we have different worldview, but I am doing my best to be less dismissive and bridge the difference in assumptions, something I did not do in my earlier messages, sorry about that.

> Holistically speaking, how do you propose we measure “health”?

I am not. I am proposing we measure precise aspects of morality. Keyword here is "precise". Measuring something requires a workable definition. A word like "health" or "good" can have several operational definitions that are contradictory with each other. In some contexts, like a hospital, you would measure "health" with a compound of physiological measures, like temperature, heart-rate, blood pressure. An economist would probably define it more in terms of likelihood to survive the year/decade.

Likewise, "ethics" or "good" are not operational definitions but things like "approval of peers", "likelihood of being recognized guilty of a crime", "reported happiness" are measurable metrics that we can use to try and establish a quantitative model of ethics.

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#109

Post by pas » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 9:26 AM UTC

titzer wrote: post #26

donatj wrote: post #12

Right off the bat it fails epicly in its comparison of Gandhi to Epstein as bastions of good and evil, as apparently the author is completely unaware of Gandhi’s sleeping with children? What a horrible choice for the side of good, given Epstein’s horrendous misdeeds. What a horribly written horribly reasoned article. Very frustrating to read. > But if Reality is itself a very general form of consciousness, and my con…

I share your disdain. Half the people talking about panpsychism are just bloviating in-between hits on DMT and are hoping to achieve Nirvana and merge with some Jungian collective unconscious, but are usually completely ignorant of that entire concept. Panpsychism doesn't mean everything and everywhere is tripping on acid having a great time. Panpsychism is actually kind of terrifying; just think about what it must f…

> just think about what it must feel like to be one of a trillion trillion trillion hydrogen atoms [...]

Usually the models of Panpsychism have a spectrum of consciousness and associate complexity of the thing with consciousness. So sure, let's say atoms have some consciousness, they have as much as is seen by a first look, that is their behavior and intelligence shows it, and it's not much, basically zero. A rock probably has more. It probably has rock-like consciousness, it has rock-behavior and rock-thoughts. It probably likes being a nice rock, hosting all those crystals, flowing through places sometimes slowly, sometimes flying off from a volcano, sometimes dissolving in a melting pool, merging with other rocks' rock-consciousness. Of course there are grumpy rocks too, just like there are many kinds of humans. And so on.

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#110

Post by pas » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 9:30 AM UTC

extempore wrote: post #31

lhorie wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider that even murder isn't universally considered bad. Examples include wars, self defense, proponents of the death penalty, the sentinelese, etc. Debates can get particularly heated when one gets into things like abortion and ethical dilemmas. As for the dichotomy of logical verification given our meat-based fallible physical medium, I'm reminded of Godel's incompleteness theory, i.e. that it is possible for a…

None of those things is murder, which is unlawful killing, usually premeditated. Maybe there is a society which doesn’t hold murder to be wrong, but I’ve never heard of it, and it’s hard to see how it could last.

One's unlawfulness is someone else's lawfulness. (Eg wars and other conflicts where there are more than one law has to be considered, for example a foreign operative committing an assassination.)