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

What's the most radical book you've read?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: What's the most radical book you've read?

#41

Post by TheCoelacanth »

rramadass wrote: post #38
usgroup wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that "life is objectively meaningless" is an unfounded statement. You should start by proving that to be true. I also think it preferentially loads words like "objective" and "existence". It also doesn't correspond to any common sense meaning of the word "meaning", since a servile dog's life is meaningful, a doctor's life is meaningful, and so on, in normal speech. If you mean to say something like "all exist…

There is nothing to "prove" here. I mentioned "Occam's Razor" to imply that among competing hypotheses the one with the fewest entities/assumptions is to be preferred. Here that is "life is objectively meaningless" over other competing hypotheses. There is also some inferential reasoning/evidence here since we know that from the pov of the objective Universe our existence on this planet makes not an iota of differenc…

Occam's Razor isn't proof, though. It's a rule of thumb for how to create the most useful hypotheses.

A more complex hypothesis isn't useful until you come up with a method of testing that will distinguish it from the simpler hypothesis. That doesn't mean you have disproved the more complex hypothesis; just that you shouldn't use that hypothesis until you actually have a need for it.

Re: What's the most radical book you've read?

#42

Post by rramadass »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #41
rramadass wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing to "prove" here. I mentioned "Occam's Razor" to imply that among competing hypotheses the one with the fewest entities/assumptions is to be preferred. Here that is "life is objectively meaningless" over other competing hypotheses. There is also some inferential reasoning/evidence here since we know that from the pov of the objective Universe our existence on this planet makes not an iota of differenc…

Occam's Razor isn't proof, though. It's a rule of thumb for how to create the most useful hypotheses. A more complex hypothesis isn't useful until you come up with a method of testing that will distinguish it from the simpler hypothesis. That doesn't mean you have disproved the more complex hypothesis; just that you shouldn't use that hypothesis until you actually have a need for it.

I have already said that there is nothing to "prove" (i.e. no proof) but that it is a necessary corollary of applying the heuristic of Occam's Razor(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor).

> A more complex hypothesis isn't useful until you come up with a method of testing that will distinguish it from the simpler hypothesis.

No, the condition is even stronger; a more complex hypothesis should not even be considered until the simpler hypothesis fails for some data/evidence.

It is one from a set of heuristics called philosophical razors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_razor) and uses Abductive reasoning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning).

Re: What's the most radical book you've read?

#44

Post by watwut »

interloxia wrote: post #22
watwut wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The suggestion that one can have a direct relationship with God tends to annoy those in power of various forms who might prefer to mediate that authority. Genuinely, have you read the bible? Because this is not message of it at all.

I have. It's not the only suggestion that is considered controversial or radical but one that I thought made for a clear answer. What the main messages are is a different question which has been a topic of debate for a while now.

Bible has tons of messaging about literally obeying authorities unless special circumstances. It does not promotes annoyance toward those in power nor treats it as a virtue.

Re: What's the most radical book you've read?

#45

Post by usgroup »

rramadass wrote: post #38
usgroup wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that "life is objectively meaningless" is an unfounded statement. You should start by proving that to be true. I also think it preferentially loads words like "objective" and "existence". It also doesn't correspond to any common sense meaning of the word "meaning", since a servile dog's life is meaningful, a doctor's life is meaningful, and so on, in normal speech. If you mean to say something like "all exist…

There is nothing to "prove" here. I mentioned "Occam's Razor" to imply that among competing hypotheses the one with the fewest entities/assumptions is to be preferred. Here that is "life is objectively meaningless" over other competing hypotheses. There is also some inferential reasoning/evidence here since we know that from the pov of the objective Universe our existence on this planet makes not an iota of differenc…

But we don't have an "outside-in" view? You have an inside + "guess the outside" view. Just because we can imagine an "outside-in" view, it doesn't mean we have it.

If there is an "objective" meaning to our lives which is without recourse to an inside-out view, then we have no access to it.

Occam's Razor, fewest entities/assumptions, etc is so problematic, because it is not invariant to being re-parameterised. I.e. under one description X is more complex than Y, and under another Y is more complex than X.

Here is Roger Penrose talking about the fine tuning of the Universe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDqny7UzyR4

Many use these observations to argue for design. Say it became a scientific consensus that design was the strongest hypothesis, because it just kept making good predictions. Design implies purpose. Would life still be meaningless?

Is this all just a regress to "nothing is just as good as something therefore all life is meaningless"? I think that's where you have to end up to defend Nihilism.

Re: What's the most radical book you've read?

#46

Post by usgroup »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #41
rramadass wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing to "prove" here. I mentioned "Occam's Razor" to imply that among competing hypotheses the one with the fewest entities/assumptions is to be preferred. Here that is "life is objectively meaningless" over other competing hypotheses. There is also some inferential reasoning/evidence here since we know that from the pov of the objective Universe our existence on this planet makes not an iota of differenc…

Occam's Razor isn't proof, though. It's a rule of thumb for how to create the most useful hypotheses. A more complex hypothesis isn't useful until you come up with a method of testing that will distinguish it from the simpler hypothesis. That doesn't mean you have disproved the more complex hypothesis; just that you shouldn't use that hypothesis until you actually have a need for it.

Yes, this section of Wikipedia is spot on in my opinion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor#Controversial_as...

Re: What's the most radical book you've read?

#47

Post by gaws »

rerdavies wrote: post #11

Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid A unique synthesis of aesthetics and mathematics that completely formed my worldview. Perhaps slightly dated, because it was written very early in the computer revolution. Had it been written today, the Artificial Intelligence chapters would be very different.

> that completely formed my worldview.

How?

Re: What's the most radical book you've read?

#48

Post by p0d »

closetkantian wrote: post #30

The Bible, specifically the New Testament, and more specifically，The Gospels. The reason that it's radical is that Christ overturns traditional notions of morality. Greco-Roman thought saw the rich and powerful as close to the divine but Christ's message is that the meek and poor are prefered by God. Coming in at #2, I would argue for Marx, maybe Capital. It's radical because it shows that Capitalism is not a "natura…

Agreed. I love the Old Testament too, as it is so raw and real. Murder, betrayal, sex, prostitution, and war. Interwoven with the hope of a new start with Christ coming to earth, and a new beginning when he returns.

Re: What's the most radical book you've read?

#49

Post by rramadass »

usgroup wrote: post #45
rramadass wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing to "prove" here. I mentioned "Occam's Razor" to imply that among competing hypotheses the one with the fewest entities/assumptions is to be preferred. Here that is "life is objectively meaningless" over other competing hypotheses. There is also some inferential reasoning/evidence here since we know that from the pov of the objective Universe our existence on this planet makes not an iota of differenc…

But we don't have an "outside-in" view? You have an inside + "guess the outside" view. Just because we can imagine an "outside-in" view, it doesn't mean we have it. If there is an "objective" meaning to our lives which is without recourse to an inside-out view, then we have no access to it. Occam's Razor, fewest entities/assumptions, etc is so problematic, because it is not invariant to being re-parameterised. I.e. u…

> But we don't have an "outside-in" view? You have an inside + "guess the outside" view.

This is not quite true. There is an Objective Reality consisting of physical laws (invariant in our Universe), Evolutionary evidence explaining the plethora of flora/fauna etc. We are but one species amongst the many that populate this planet. There is nothing "special" about Homo Sapiens (we simply occupy our own niche in the evolutionary tree) except for our different brains resulting in a greater degree of "self-awareness" and more complex social structures than other species.

> If there is an "objective" meaning to our lives which is without recourse to an inside-out view, then we have no access to it.

Not true at all. The whole of Modern Science is founded on trying to find out Objective Reality independent of us and has been quite successful at it.

Re: What's the most radical book you've read?

#50

Post by barfbagginus »

Gnarl wrote: post #28

"Rules for Radicals" by Saul D. Alinsky. On how to organize revolutions and how to be careful about what you wish for.

Atlinsky is nice but he's kind of tepid and Western anti-violentist/ Western nationalist. So he can't speak about situations where military resistance is necessary, such as resistance against fascism or dictatorship. These can inoculate themselves against alinskian shock provocation tactics by using brutality and propaganda.

In order to understand the proper use of violentism/militarism and the, ethical high ground against a dominant enemy, I recommend Che Guevara's "Guerilla Warfare". It introduces the moral high ground, the national good, the organization, the economics, and the field tactics of strike and retreat, giving units quotas of cane crops to burn, etc.

Please read Che's letters as well - "I Embrace You with All My Revolutionary Fervor: Letters 1947-1967". They will show the human behind the tactics.

Both books are on the audiobook bay, along with alinsky. They provide a perfect counterpoint to alinsky.

As we enter an era of American nationalist fascism, alinskian tactics might need to give way to queer inclusivist cyber guerilla tactics. For a Just and Libre Society! We can win!

Post reply on HN