= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
cousin_it comments on Mahatma Armstrong: CEVed to death. - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (60)
Or maybe it means that objective morality exists. You never know :-)
Suppose ten trillion moral starting points, a thousand attractors. Then moral realism is certainly wrong, but the process is clearly flawed.
Really? Why?
It seems perfectly plausible to me that there might be many fewer satisfactory endpoints than starting points. In most optimization processes, there's at most a discrete set of acceptable endpoints, even when there are uncountably infinitely many possible places to start.
Why would it indicate a flaw in CEV if the same turned out to be true there?
I agree, though perhaps morality could be disjunctive.