SneerClub

989 readers

44 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

e/acc has solved the "is-ought" problem with thermodynamics! (twitter.com)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Brain genius Beff Jezos manages to butcher both philosophy and physics at the same time!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 19 points 9 months ago (10 children)

For people who don't want to go to twitter, heres the thread:

Doomers: "YoU cAnNoT dErIvE wHaT oUgHt fRoM iS" 😵‍💫

Reality: you literally can derive what ought to be (what is probable) from the out-of-equilibrium thermodynamical equations, and it simply depends on the free energy dissipated by the trajectory of the system over time.

While I am purposefully misconstruing the two definitions here, there is an argument to be made by this very principle that the post-selection effect on culture yields a convergence of the two

How do you define what is "ought"? Based on a system of values. How do you determine your values? Based on cultural priors. How do those cultural priors get distilled from experience? Through a memetic adaptive process where there is a selective pressure on the space of cultures.

Ultimately, the value systems that survive will be the ones that are aligned towards growth of its ideological hosts, i.e. according to memetic fitness.

Memetic fitness is a byproduct of thermodynamic dissipative adaptation, similar to genetic evolution.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Solving the is-ought problem is super easy when you change what "ought" means.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 9 months ago (2 children)

P=NP if N=1

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago

from the same CS minds who brought you “the solution to the halting problem is trivial, just ask the computer if it halted. hyperturing!”

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

"This... statement... is... false! (don't think about it don't think about it don't think about it...)"

"Uh, true, I'll go with true."

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago

I dislike how often people pull this trick. 'here are 5 definitions of this thing, we are going to pick one, prove something for it, and claim it also holds for all the other definitions, and never tell people we are working with a non-standard thing'. I get that the goal is to make the non-standard definition the standard, it is activism masking as logic, but eurgh.

load more comments (7 replies)