Why life is absurd

If you developed as a mosquito you wouldn't have your mind, you would have the mosquito's mind - you would be the mosquito, not a human as a mosquito. You can't be and cannot have been anything other than what you are, which is a liberating thought. Alternatively, you are everything because if you had developed from the exact same initial conditions as something else you would have developed into that thing as it is exactly.

Did a ctrl+f for "Jerry" and no results were found. Not sure ift his article should be trusted.

TL;DR: In the context of our existence, only the brevity of our lives strikes us as absurd.

Richard Hamming has a talk titled "You and Your Research", in which he discusses what sorts of things you should be working on. The summary is that you should be working on important problems. He then lists three of the most important problems that no one should actually work on, time travel, teleportation, and something else that I can't remember off the top of my head.

The thing Hamming understood, but which Bostrom, et al. don't is that sometimes even if something is extremely important or significant the lack of any reasonable approach to it makes it an unattractive thing to expend effort on. At least until a solution is more tractable.

Further, the idea that everyone dying is some great tragedy is only true in the philosophy Bostrom and others have adopted. It is one of massive egoism and human-centrism that I think is misplaced. These same people then reject any philosophies that lessen the devastation of death on the grounds that they are the fictions of lesser minds attempting to placate themselves over their impending death. But there is no objectively true philosophy. The whole point of philosophy is to invent a fiction that lets you cope with reality in a productive way.

Very good point! To the extent that we can build on abstractions and black boxes we stand on the shoulders of giants. BTW, perhaps s/human intelligence/science & technology.

Does this really work about as well (e.g. leaky abstractions but better than nothing) in all disciplines? Learning math is a pretty much a 'climb the ladder' experience. You don't have to literally discover it all for yourself, but you do still have to learn it. I assume e.g. biology is similar; there are absolutely abstractions upon abstractions, but it takes a tremendous amount of work to level up to the point where you are making breakthroughs.

Certainly low hanging fruit abounds, but our individual capacity for learning seems fairly limited in the great scale of things, and has not advanced much in the past few centuries. As a species, we either gain an order-of-magnitude increase in our ability to learn/retain knowledge, or the computer does it all for us. Not sure how much I like the potential adverse side-effects of the 2nd case.

Evolution of science / technology is typically drawn on an exponential scale and we're staring up the side of a cliff ahead of us. There are a lot of marvels in the world we have built, but most of them to someone with 15 years of training in the relevant field are not black boxes or magic. I just imagine climbing much further up the cliff and you start to get to that point.

E.g. I was watching a video of how the Toyota Prius eCVT works last night. I know fuck-all about CVTs, but I have a passing familiarity with planetary gears, and could follow the 15 minute explanation / walkthrough and learned enough to distinguish eCVT from magic. In 100-500 years I would be surprised if the underlying technology of our personal transportation devices would be remotely so 'accessible'.

Isn't it only a matter of time before computers are designing and replicating devices that are sufficiently beyond our capability to understand how they even operate? Or synthetic compounds created by computer algorithms that cure disease but we have literally no idea the mechanism of action? Maybe in a very few problem domains today this is already the case.