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

The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 119 posts

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#51

Post by ukj »

Ste_Evans wrote: post #10
konjin wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maths is what happens when you take nonsense very seriously. For some odd reason a subset of all the possible non-sense maps really well to the real world.

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.

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#53

Post by ukj »

radford-neal wrote: post #50
ukj wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every question beggs another. Münchhausen trilemma All definitions are (meta)circular. Because language is recursive.

So far, in this brief comment and a brief comment above, you've mentioned Goodhart's law, the McNamara fallacy, and the Munchhausen trilemma. I know nothing of any of these. I think that you would communicate better if you avoided such references. I'd even venture to suggest that your internal thoughts might be improved by not shoving arguments into such pre-defined categories.

I like terseness.

Just because you haven't heard of something it doesn't preclude it from being a well-indexed idea in human folklore.

Google is your friend.

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#54

Post by a1369209993 »

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 former and away from the latter

That this is false is obvious to anyone who has actually bothered to observe reality. People sometimes unnaturally and non-essentially impose such direction, but Reality itself tends toward the opposite.

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#55

Post by Iv »

ukj wrote: post #38
Iv wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the idea that morality is something that is built by mankind and that needs to be extracted by studies. For instance, economists have found the value at which US society estimates an American's life by seeing at which point risks balances costs in some hazardous investments.

This conception is highly susceptible to Goodhart's law. It favours the quantitative over the qualitative which is a good way to trip over the McNamara fallacy.

I don't think so, if it is done properly. For instance you want a human life to be worth more but the only way for that to happen is to actually spend more to save human lives, which makes the value of life increase.

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#56

Post by manofmanysmiles »

keiferski wrote: post #48
danidiaz wrote: post #36

Bart Streumer is mentioned in the piece. His book "Unbelievable Errors: An Error Theory about All Normative Judgements" begins with a pretty cool sentence: > You cannot believe the view I will defend in this book. I therefore will not be able to convince you that this view is true.

Honestly not a bad approach. I wish more people just shared their ideas instead of trying to persuade and convert me to their position.

How can you really understand someone’s ideas without understanding all the premises?

Isn’t it necessary for then to try to “convince” you insofar as just stating a conclusion without supporting arguments is no different than stating an opinion?

Or put a different way, why would you ever desire to hear opinions without trying to understand them or establish their truth?

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#57

Post by radford-neal »

radford-neal wrote: post #50
ukj wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every question beggs another. Münchhausen trilemma All definitions are (meta)circular. Because language is recursive.

So far, in this brief comment and a brief comment above, you've mentioned Goodhart's law, the McNamara fallacy, and the Munchhausen trilemma. I know nothing of any of these. I think that you would communicate better if you avoided such references. I'd even venture to suggest that your internal thoughts might be improved by not shoving arguments into such pre-defined categories.

I think you overestimate the amount of effort people are willing to go to in order to decipher a cryptic comment by someone called "ukj".

Seriously. I'm trying to help you here. At present, you're just wasting your time.

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#58

Post by dgreensp »

Drakim wrote: post #11

Here is my take: All knowledge is ultimately based on assumptions, and those assumptions ultimately hang in thin air. We rely on our senses to observe the world around us, and we rely on our mental faculties to interpenetrate what we observe. But we have no way of knowing if our senses, and our mental faculties, can be trusted, if they are accurate to some objective reality. It might very well be that what we take in…

I agree. Your point that "assumptions hang in thin air" removes the need for the universe to supply us with axioms, including moral axioms, which is an idea the author leans on heavily.

We have many thoughts and ideas about life. For example, a person might think, "The ideal life is infinitely long and involves no pain." This probably comes from a logical part of the mind, similar to where statements like "two plus two equals four" are validated and appreciated, but that doesn't mean it's equally objective. We are animals, and staying alive and avoiding pain are strong drives.

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#59

Post by keiferski »

manofmanysmiles wrote: post #56
keiferski wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly not a bad approach. I wish more people just shared their ideas instead of trying to persuade and convert me to their position.

How can you really understand someone’s ideas without understanding all the premises? Isn’t it necessary for then to try to “convince” you insofar as just stating a conclusion without supporting arguments is no different than stating an opinion? Or put a different way, why would you ever desire to hear opinions without trying to understand them or establish their truth?

Not sure how you get this from the quote. I meant that I prefer it when the mood of a book is this is interesting/beautiful/insightful and not this is my conclusion, now I’m going to construct an argument to convince you it’s the right one.

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#60

Post by ukj »

radford-neal wrote: post #57
radford-neal wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So far, in this brief comment and a brief comment above, you've mentioned Goodhart's law, the McNamara fallacy, and the Munchhausen trilemma. I know nothing of any of these. I think that you would communicate better if you avoided such references. I'd even venture to suggest that your internal thoughts might be improved by not shoving arguments into such pre-defined categories.

I think you overestimate the amount of effort people are willing to go to in order to decipher a cryptic comment by someone called "ukj". Seriously. I'm trying to help you here. At present, you're just wasting your time.

Medice, cura te ipsum.
Post reply on HN