Nisan comments on Open Thread, April 2011 - Less Wrong

5 Post author: ata 02 April 2011 06:43PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (109)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: TheCosmist 02 April 2011 08:47:08PM *  3 points [-]

(I'm new here and don't have enough karma to create a thread, so I am posting this question here. Apologies in advance if this is inappropriate.)

Here is a topic I haven’t seen discussed on this forum: the philosophy of “Cosmicism”. If you’re not familiar with it check Wikipedia, but the quick summary is that it’s the philosophy invented by H. P. Lovecraft which posits that humanity’s values have no cosmic significance or absolute validity in our vast cosmos; to some alien species we might encounter or AI we might build, our values would be as meaningless as the values of insects are to us. Furthermore, all our creations and efforts are ultimately futile in a universe of increasing entropy and astrophysical annihilation. Lovecraft’s conclusion is: “good, evil, morality, feelings? Pure 'Victorian fictions'. Only egotism exists."

Personally I find this point of view difficult to refute – it seems as close to the truth about “life, the universe and everything” as one can have and remain consistent with our current understanding of the universe. At the same time, such a philosophy is rather frightening in that a world of egomaniacal cosmicists who consider human values to be meaningless would be seem to be highly unstable and insane.

I don’t claim to be an exceptionally rational person, so I’m asking the rationalists of this forum: what is your response to Cosmicism?

Comment author: Nisan 03 April 2011 01:29:35AM *  19 points [-]

cousin_it and Vladimir_Nesov's replies are good answers; at the risk of being redundant, I'll take this point by point.

to some alien species we might encounter or AI we might build, our values would be as meaningless as the values of insects are to us.

The above is factually correct.

humanity’s values have no cosmic significance or absolute validity in our vast cosmos

The phrases "cosmic significance" and "absolute validity" are confused notions. They don't actually refer to anything in the world. For more on this kind of thing you will want to read the Reductionism Sequence.

all our creations and efforts are ultimately futile in a universe of increasing entropy and astrophysical annihilation

Our efforts would be "ultimately futile" if we were doomed to never achieve our goals, to never satisfy any of our values. If the only things we valued were things like "living for an infinite amount of time", then yes, the heat death of the universe would make all our efforts futile. But if we value things that only require finite resources, like "getting a good night's sleep tonight", then no, our efforts are not a priori futile.

Only egotism exists.

Egotism is an idea, not a thing, so it's meaningless to say that it exists or doesn't exist. You could say "Only egoists exist", but that would be false. You could also say "In the limit of perfect information and perfect rationality, all humans would be egoists", and I believe that's also false. Certainly nothing you've said implies that it's true.

The Metaethics Sequence directly addresses and dissolves the idea that everything seems to be meaningless because there is no objective, universally compelling morality. But the Reductionism Sequence should be read first.

Comment author: jsalvatier 03 April 2011 04:38:38AM *  6 points [-]

Very well expressed. Especially since it links to the specific sequence that deals with this instead of generally advising to "read the sequences".

Comment author: TheCosmist 03 April 2011 04:29:17AM *  1 point [-]

Wow fantastic thank you for this excellent reply. Just out of curiosity, is there any question this "cult of rationality" doesn't have a "sequence" or a ready answer for? ;)

Comment author: benelliott 03 April 2011 08:19:53AM *  5 points [-]

The sequences are designed to dissolve common confusions. By dint of those confusions being common, almost everybody falls into them at one time or another, so it should not be surprising that the sequences come up often in response to new questions.

Comment author: Nisan 03 April 2011 04:49:50PM *  4 points [-]

You're welcome. The FAQ says:

Why do you all agree on so much? Am I joining a cult?

We have a general community policy of not pretending to be open-minded on long-settled issues for the sake of not offending people. If we spent our time debating the basics, we would never get to the advanced stuff at all. Yes, some of the results that fall out of these basics sound weird if you haven't seen the reasoning behind them, but there's nothing in the laws of physics that prevents reality from sounding weird.

Comment author: arundelo 03 April 2011 11:33:52PM 0 points [-]