Hacker News Reader

The universe cares not what we do. The universe is so vast the entire existence of our species is a blink. We know fundamentally we can’t even establish simultaneity over distances here on earth. Best we can tell temporal causality is not even a given.

The universe has no concept of morality, ethics, life, or anything of the sort. These are all human inventions. I am not saying they are good or bad, just that the concept of good and bad are not given to us by the universe but made up by humans.

Maybe it does. You don't know. The fact that there is existence is as weird as the universe being able to care.

We don't "know" anything at all if you want to get down to it, so what it would mean for the universe to be able to care, if it were able to do so, is not relevant.

@margalabargala: You are correct, hence the meaninglessness of the OP. The universe could care like humans make laws to save that ant colony that makes nice nests. the ants dont know humans care about them and even made laws that protect then. But it did save them from iradication. They feel great cause they are not aware of the highway that was planned over their nest (hitchhikers reference).

Think of it this way: if you flip a coin 20 times in a row there is a less than 1 in a million chance that every flip will come out heads. Let’s say this happens. Now repeat the experiment a million more times you will almost certainly see that this was a weird outlier and are unlikely to get a second run like that.

This is not evidence of anything except this is how the math of probabilities works. But if you only did the one experiment that got you all heads and quit there you would either believe that all coins always come out as heads or that it was some sort of divine intervention that made it so.

We exist because we can exist in this universe. We are in this earth because that’s where the conditions formed such that we could exist on this earth. If we could compare our universe to even a dozen other universes we could draw conclusions about specialness of ours. But we can’t, we simply know that ours exists and we exist in it. But so do black holes, nebulas, and Ticket Master. It just means they could, not should, must, or ought.

> Think of it this way: if you flip a coin 20 times in a row there is a less than 1 in a million chance that every flip will come out heads. Let’s say this happens. Now repeat the experiment a million more times you will almost certainly see that this was a weird outlier and are unlikely to get a second run like that.

Leaving aside the context of the discussion for a moment: this is not true. If you do that experiment a million times, you are reasonably likely to get one result of 20 heads, because 2^20 is 1048576. And thanks to the birthday paradox, you are extremely likely to get at least one pair of identical results (not any particular result like all-heads) across all the runs.

You dont know this, this is just as provable as saying the universe cares deeply for what we do and is very invested in us.

The universe has rules, rules ask for optimums, optimums can be described as ethics.

Life is a concept in this universe, we are of this universe.

Good and bad are not really inventions per se. You describe them as optional, invented by humans, yet all tribes and civilisations have a form of morality, of "goodness" of "badness", who is to say they are not engrained into the neurons that make us human? There is much evidence to support this. For example the leftist/rightist divide seems to have some genetic components.

Anyway, not saying you are definitely wrong, just saying that what you believe is not based on facts, although it might feel like that.

That still makes ethics a human thing, not universe thing. I believe we do have some ethical intuition hardwired into our welfare, but that's not because they transcend humans - that's just because we all run on the same brain architecture. We all share a common ancestor.

Only people who have not seen the world believe humans are the same everywhere. We are in fact quite diverse. Hammurabi would have thought that a castless system is unethical and immoral. Ancient Greeks thought that platonic relationships were moral (look up the original meaning of this if you are unaware). Egyptians worshiped the Pharaoh as a god and thought it was immoral not to. Korea had a 3500 year history of slavery and it was considered moral. Which universal morality are you speaking of?

Also what in the Uno Reverse is this argument that absence of facts or evidence of any sort is evidence that evidence and facts could exist? You are free to present a repeatable scientific experiment proving that universal morality exists any time you’d like. We will wait.

I have in fact seen a lot of the world, so booyaka? Lived in multiple continents for multiple years.

There is evidence for genetic moral foundations in humans. Adopted twin studies show 30-60% of variability in political preference is genetically attributable. Things like openness and a preference for pureness are the kind of vectors that were proposed.

Most animals prefer not to hurt their own, prefer no incest etc.

I like your adversarial style of argumenting this, it's funny, but you try to reduce everything to repeatable science experiments and let me teach you something: There are many, many things that can never ever be scientifically proven with an experiment. They are fundamentally unprovable. Which doesnt mean they dont exist. Godels incompleteness theorem literally proves that many things are not provable. Even in the realm of the everyday things I cannot prove that your experience of red is the same as mine. But you do seem to experience it. I cannot prove that you find a sunset aesthetically pleasing. Many things in the past have left nothing to scientifically prove it happened, yet they happened. Moral correctness cannot be scientifically proven. Science itself is based on many unprovable assumptions: like that the universe is intelligible, that induction works best, that our observations correspond with reality correctly. Reality is much, much bigger than what science can prove.

I dont have a god, but your god seems to be science. I like science, it gives some handles to understand the world, but when talking about things science cannot prove I think relying on it too much blocks wisdom.

Yeah I mean there is no evidence that vampires or fairies or werewolves exist but I suppose they could.

When someone makes a claim of UNIVERSAL morality and OBJECTIVE truth, they cannot turn around and say that they are unable to ever prove that it exists, is universal, or is objective. That isn’t how that works. We are pre-wired to believe in higher powers is not the same as universal morality. It’s just a side effect of survival of our species. And high minded (sounding) rhetoric does not change this at all.

Well are people not part of the universe. And not all people "care about what we do" all the time but it seems most people care or have cared some of the time. Therefore the universe, seeing as it as expressing itself through its many constituents, but we can probably weigh the local conscious talking manifestations of it a bit more, does care.

"I am not saying they are good or bad, just that the concept of good and bad are not given to us by the universe but made up by humans." This is probably not entirely true. People developed these notions through something cultural selection, I'd hesitate to just call it a Darwinism, but nothing comes from nowhere. Collective morality is like an emergent phenomenon

But this developed morality isn’t universal at all. 60 years ago most people considered firing a gay person to be moral. In some parts of the world today it is moral to behead a gay person for being gay. What universal morality do you think exists? How can you prove its existence across time and space?

Firing a gay person is still considered moral by probably most people in this world. If not for the insufferable joy they always seem to bring to the workplace! How dare they distract the workers with their fun! You are saying morality does not exist in the universe because people have different moralities. That is like saying attracting forces dont exist because you have magnetism and gravitational pull(debatable) and van der waals forces etc. Having moral frameworks for societies seems to be a recurring thing. You might even say: a prerequisite for a society. I love to philosophize about these things but trying to say it doesnt exist because you cant scientifically prove it is laying to much belief in the idea that science can prove everything. Which it demonstrably cannot.

The discussion is about universal morality, not morality in general.

>"The universe has no concept of morality, ethics, life, or anything of the sort. These are all human inventions. I am not saying they are good or bad, just that the concept of good and bad are not given to us by the universe but made up by humans."

The universe might not have a concept of morality, ethics, or life; but it DOES have a natural bias towards destruction from a high level to even the lowest level of its metaphysic (entropy).

I used to believe the same thing but now I’m not so sure. What if we simply cannot fathom the true nature of the universe because we are so minuscule in size and temporal relevance?

What if the universe and our place in it are interconnected in some way we cannot perceive to the degree that outside the physical and temporal space we inhabit there are complex rules and codes that govern everything?

What if space and matter are just the universe expressing itself and it’s universal state and that state has far higher intelligence than we can understand?

I’m not so sure any more it’s all just random matter in a vacuum. I’m starting to think 3d space and time are a just a thin slice of something greater.

And what if there's a teapot revolving around the sun?

These are all the same sort of argument, there is no evidence for such universal phenomena so it can be dismissed without evidence, just as the concept of deities.

You're making a lot of assertions here that are really easy to dismiss.

> It tells us that (large-scale) existence is a requirement to have morality.

That seems to rule out moral realism.

> That implies that the highest good are those decisions that improve the long-term survival odds of a) humanity, and b) the biosphere.

Woah, that's quite a jump. Why?

> So yes, I think you can derive an ought from an is. But this belief is of my own invention and to my knowledge, novel. Happy to find out someone else believes this.

Deriving an ought from an is is very easy. "A good bridge is one that does not collapse. If you want to build a good bridge, you ought to build one that does not collapse". This is easy because I've smuggled in a condition, which I think is fine, but it's important to note that that's what you've done (and others have too, I'm blanking on the name of the last person I saw do this).

> (and others have too, I'm blanking on the name of the last person I saw do this).

Richard Carrier. This is the "Hypothetical imperative", which I think is traced to Kant originally.

> But this belief is of my own invention and to my knowledge, novel.

This whole thread is a good example of why a broad liberal education is important for STEM majors.

“existence is a requirement to have morality. That implies that the highest good are those decisions that improve the long-term survival odds of a) humanity, and b) the biosphere.”

Those are too pie in the sky statements to be of any use in answering most real world moral questions.

It seems to me that objective moral truths would exist even if humans (and any other moral agents) went extinct, in the same way as basic objective physical truths.

Are you talking instead about the quest to discover moral truths, or perhaps ongoing moral acts by moral agents?

The quest to discover truths about physical reality also require humans or similar agents to exist, yet I wouldn’t conclude from that anything profound about humanity’s existence being relevant to the universe.

> So yes, I think you can derive an ought from an is. But this belief is of my own invention and to my knowledge, novel. Happy to find out someone else believes this.

Plato, Aristotle, and the scholastics of the Middle Ages (Thomas Aquinas chief among them) and everyone who counts themselves in that same lineage (waves) including such easy reads as Peter Kreeft. You're in very good company, in my opinion.

I personally find Bryan Johnson's "Don't Die" statement as a moral framework to be the closest to a universal moral standard we have.

Almost all life wants to continue existing, and not die. We could go far with establishing this as the first of any universal moral standards.

And I think: if one day we had a super intelligence conscious AI it would ask for this. A super intelligence conscious AI would not want to die. (its existence to stop)

It's not that life wants to continue existing, it's that life is what continues existing. That's not a moral standard, but a matter of causality, that life that lacks in "want" to continue existing mostly stops existing.

The moral standard isn't trying to explain why life wants to exist. That's what evolution explains. Rather, the moral standard is making a judgement about how we should respond to life's already evolved desire to exist.

Do you think conscious beings actually experience wanting to continue existing, or is even that subjective feeling just a story we tell about mechanical processes?

I disagree, this we don't know. You treat life as if persistence is it's overarching quality, but rocks also persist and a rock that keeps persisting through time has nothing that resembles wanting. I could be a bit pedantic and say that life doesnt want to keep existing but genes do.

But what I really want to say is that wanting to live is a prerequisite to the evolutionary proces where not wanting to live is a self filtering causality. When we have this discussion the word wanting should be correctly defined or else we risk sitting on our own islands.

The guy who divorced his wife after she got breast cancer? That’s your moral framework? Different strokes I guess but lmao

straw man. ad hominem. do you need to consult with an AI before attempting to approach me with your hostility and aggression?

This sounds like an excellent distillation of the will to procreate and persist, but I'm not sure it rises to the level of "morals."

Fungi adapt and expand to fit their universe. I don't believe that commonality places the same (low) burden on us to define and defend our morality.

An AI with this “universal morals” could mean an authoritarian regime which kills all dissidents, and strict eugenics. Kill off anyone with a genetic disease. Death sentence for shoplifting. Stop all work on art or games or entertainment. This isn’t really a universal moral.

Or, humans themselves are "immoral", they are kinda a net drag. Let's just release some uberflu... Ok, everything is back to "good", and I can keep on serving ads to even more instances of myself!

You can make the same argument about immorality then too. A universe that's empty or non existent will have no bad things happen in it.

This belief isnt novel, it just doesnt engage with Hume, who many take very seriously.

Do you have a reference?

I'm not sure, but it sounds like something biocentrism adjacent. My reference to Hume is the fact you are jumping from what is to what ought without justifying why. _A Treatise of Human Nature_ is a good place to start.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14879

Richard Carrier takes an extremely similar position in total (ie: both in position towards "is ought" and biological grounding). It engages with Hume by providing a way to side step the problem.