Philosophy

Post Reply New Topic

I think before a society can have any degree of cohesion, it must have a unifying philosophy. Certain societies (i.e. the United States) were founded under some sort of philosophical ideal, but those ideals have generally been lost or have become obsolete. I had the idea of forming an AS society, but I have come to realize that such a society would be pointless without some specified goal. And any goal, if it is not to be totally random must be inline with some philosophy. Before any meaningful society can be developed, it must have an agreed upon philosophy. I will express my philosophical ideas here, but they are very much incomplete, in progress, and I would very much like to hear the input and opinions of others in its development. I cannot develop a society unless we have a philosophy we all agree upon, so hopefully we will have the beginnings of such a philosophy here.

As an individual, I am unimportant, as are all individuals, except inasmuch as our capacity to contribute to the greater development of the universe. The universe itself exists entirely on information. There is nothing that exists that is not information, and all that is information exists. The universe is a machine for processing information, and it processes it to a specific goal. This goal cannot be precisely defined. If the exact form of the goal were already known, then there would be no point in creating any intermediate stage. Rather it is the result of a program computationally irreducible, the exact result of it cannot be determined without executing its program. It is creating something NP-complete, something easily verified, but unable to be created without creating a universe and determining, at each stage, how close a result is to the final goal. Repeat this sufficiently many times, over the course of billions of years and you will reach a desired final result.

The universe exists to create interesting content. That which is interesting is that which is neither random, nor monotonous, but some combination of both. It has structure on the small scale and on the large scale. It has dynamics, not easily predicted in any manner, but neither is it random noise. Everything that is in the universe is designed to identify, in its local frame, what is interesting, and to preferentially select those things that are more interesting. Human beings are a part of the universe, and as such we seek out interesting things and neglect those things that are not interesting. We seek to create things that are more interesting than those we have already observed. Continuing this process, we continue to make more and more interesting things as time progresses. This process does not require any specific intent. It is the nature of the universe that it will make itself more interesting, and, as a part of the universe it is impossible to stop this process, it may however be possible to expedite it.

The goal of a society under this philosophy should be to do everything possible to encourage the development of interesting content, to the exclusion of all else. The society must focus on encourage that which is new, which is unique, and, to the greatest extent possible, to eliminate all distractions from this creation.

This philosophy is still work in progress. I want to develop an algorithm to precisely describe the interestingness of a particular system. I want to determine how a particular input can be determined to contribute to overall interestingness or not. I want to determine to what extent human beings play in this process, or if there is a way to improve on the human condition to optimize for this situation. There are many questions still unanswered, but I want to hear the opinions of others. Is this a philosophy worth pursuing? Are there elements that I have not considered? Are there questions which I could answer more thoroughly? Am I completely wrong about my goal? Any and all opinions or contributions about what I have said are welcomed.

The universe does not exist to anything. There is no built in end (as in purpose) in nature. What ever is, is and whatever the laws of nature are, they are.

If there are any purposes or ends, folks like us, have to supply them.

ruveyn

If there is no purpose at all, then how do you explain your own existence? The universe has over its billions of years of existence selected for something. It started as nothing but energy, then forming subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, dust, galaxies, stars, planets, organic molecules, amino acids, proteins, RNA, DNA, bacteria, eukaryotes, multicellular lifeforms, plants, animals, human beings, civilization, art, technology, industry, computers. We are not the only example of the universe's tendency toward complexity, but we are one example. At each step, the universe took essentially random processes, and while it could have allowed these to remain noise and be as insignificant as any other noise, certain patterns were selected and allowed to reproduce and grow into other, ever more complex patterns. What is the criteria the universe used to make this selection? It was not just random chance.

If you believe we must supply the purpose to existence, something with which I highly agree, then what should that purpose be? Like all that has come before it, to be meaningful, it cannot be something totally random. If you believe there is no purpose at all, then we could supply any purpose we like and it would make no difference. For that matter, any number of societies could come about and each supply their own purpose and there would be no way to determine the validity of one over the other. And when they come into conflict, those societies will fight, and people will die. Is such conflict simply the nature of existence? Is it just luck when one society wins over another, or is there a criteria for selection of one purpose? Is there a way to avoid such conflict by mutual agreement of a purpose, or is this conflict simply a requirement for existence?

Atoms in the void interacting in a way described by quantum physics.

Next question?

ruveyn

I asked several more. Yes, we behave in a manner dictated by the laws of physics, but we are more than just a collection of atoms; we a complex system. What in quantum mechanics explains how it can develop into more complex life forms, and how those life forms might eventually develop intelligence and civilization? I know there is such an explanation, but perhaps it would be more useful to look at the larger scale patterns formed, and which have a greater potential to survive than others.

What does all this have to to with a Cosmic Purpose?

ruveyn

We have thus far evolved from essential nothingness into our current state of relative advancement. We have reached a point in our development where our evolution need no longer entirely be guided by the forces of nature, but where we may take a more direct and deliberate role in guiding our own development. Yes, we may choose any path we like, but a more pertinent question is what path should we choose?

You are talking about some sentient beings who live in an obscure suburb of the Milky Way galaxy which is one of billyuns and billyuns of galaxies. What does this have to do with Cosmic Purpose?

ruveyn

What do a few atoms among the approximately 10^25 in your body have to do with you? Very little, unless they happen to be part of a DNA molecule, or perhaps among those determine which of the neurons in your brain fire and when, or perhaps one of those ATP molecules powering the sperm cell that fertilized the egg that became the embryo that eventually grew into you. Now we are small, and occupy a tiny, insignificant corner of the universe, but we have the potential to grow beyond that. We have the potential to grow to occupy this entire galaxy, and perhaps other galaxies beyond that. One might ask if we should, and if we should, what form should that occupation take? We can create a society in any manner we like. Shall we create some larger, more complex lifeform, of which individuals are but cells, or shall we just be a species of bacteria, omnipresent anywhere life can exist, but forming nothing of any great complexity and eliminated by complex lifeforms wherever our presence is inconvenient?

I say, good for you, AnAlias, in rebutting this nihilism, or whatever the technical term might be for your interlocutor's position.

I see a lot of interesting exploration of ideas ahead of you (what, in my crystal ball?). What can be frustrating is that while such an exploration is interesting, it seems inexhaustible and that's just toying with catching up on what the western tradtion has been doing for 2500 years. Philosophically, most if not all of what we think about has already been thought about and answered more thoroughly than each of us will ever think about it and answer it (and it is largely available on the internet). This is one reason why I prefer to focus on philosophical questions that are pertinent to my own life as it is therin that I want to be benefited by such exploration and it is myself that remains unique to some extent among this vast sea of repeated questions and answers (or lack of them).

Your description of the universe as existing to produce interesting content makes me think you are describing the internet. This gets me thinking about how culture can influence how we see nature. Do we see nature (the universe) like a computer or an internet because we are conditioned to think of what is in front of us (nature/universe) by what has been in front of us (computer/internet) or do we produce the computer/internet because it that is how nature/universe is? There's a similar literature about Darwins theories emerging at the the same time as modern capitalist (competition) economic practices (and theories). Alas, I'm sure it has all been thought and answered before somewhere (and it is only of peripheral interest to my particular life at the moment).

What I havn't heard before (among most things) is your idea of creating an algorithm to describe interestingness. But to be cheeky, I don't need an algorithm to know my present disinterest in such an idea. It comes off as a little anti-climatic, though. That after all these years searching, humanity has discovered that the purpose of the universe is to 'create interestingness'. I suspect there's a language problem here. I'm trying to understand Wittgenstein (without reading him). He might ask: What is 'interestingness'? Where is it (in the world)? He might imply that you are speaking about something that it does not make sense to speak about as some actual quality in the world. As a property that we bring to the world rather than one found in it, interestingness also strikes me as a highly subjective thing (what you find interesting, others have stopped reading by now (and even you're waning)). Not really the sort of thing I would be looking for as a universal or transcendent purpose, but that's just my bias.

Probably false. A generally agreed upon space of norms does not seem sufficient to consider a "unifying philosophy" and most societies have some degree of evolution over time, and diversity and even confusion about the aims and nature of society. Most people are not intellectual enough to have unifying philosophies, and the binding forces of a society are often less thought-out than the ideas of the individual, so I see no problem with outright contradiction.


Is there a distinction between meaningful and meaningless societies?


I do not understand the basis for this claim. Even further, "development of the universe" supposes a lot of metaphysical baggage that I can hardly see a justification for.


And then what is matter? The only way I can see this being justified is if it is argued that our universe is like a virtual world, and is really just software. However, without such an argument, I would have to say that the more basic way to regard the universe is as a thing of material and energy and that the only thing supporting this shift is some "information mysticism" perhaps.


Interesting claim. Do you have any proof or evidence or something else for it?


Why? Why not the opposite? Even further, wouldn't such a society radically undermine the well-being of humans? After all, sadists, psychopaths, and others of that nature can be very interesting, and their transgressive acts are unusual even by human standards.


Given that "interesting" is a subjective term, this sounds a bit absurd. Unless you posit an objective interestingness(which could probably not be measured in the first place) then we have just a bunch of dancing on clouds, and not a lot of concrete material to work with.


I don't think so. Rather, I would have to suggest it is thoroughly flawed/questionable.

The universe over its billions of years of existence has selected for everything that currently exists, and the set of things that currently exists is expansive enough that it is hard to claim that this was a purposive act.


No, it was not just random chance. It was a process of elimination. Complicated structures are hard to implement all at once, but once implemented they have certain advantages over much simpler structures. Surely you wouldn't claim that our highly complicated society has no advantages over a simpler society, whether these advantages are in military, healthcare, food security, etc.


The question seems confused. How can we determine what a purpose should be? Wouldn't we need some goals for our determination of what the purpose should be?


Honestly, I would have to say that such conflict is the nature of existence. It is not luck when one society wins, simply a matter of the strength of that society. It isn't as if the "best society" wins, but rather many victories are gained out of greed and willingness to be cruel and intimidating. I suppose one can argue that strength is maintained by good institutions and that these require some virtues to maintain them, but if vice were necessary for success, should we expect that which is commonly called virtue to win out?

I don't understand the term "should" in the context. You want to invent a morality. If you are inventing morality, then terms like "should" are pointless. The structure has to be constructed from whole cloth and bind people either by brainwashing or by the aesthetic appeal of it, but pretending objectivity for such a construction project is pointless. Nothing determines the goal.

We cannot create a society in any manner we like, and that's part of the issue. The nature of human beings favors certain constructions and disfavors others. Even further... it is hard to understand what a "larger lifeform" would really be like. I mean, human societies as they stand now already show signs of super-organism kinds of processing, an example of this being the Invisible Hand, but the problem is that all of these systems are complicated, prone to failure, and hard to engineer. The kind of task you are even trying to pursue is beyond our current social scientific abilities to the point of folly. We have problems just engineering this system, but remodeling it to any purpose is very likely to fail. Societies do not tend to be constructed, but rather they evolve through long-stretches of learning and institutional alteration. Pushing for certain institutions is reasonable, but pushing for utopia will likely be a death march and historically it has often been such.

Entropy

"The universe does not exist for a reason" is not a nihilistic viewpoint. It is, instead, a viewpoint based upon empirical data - that which can be observed and verified through further independent observations. Other than a few written accounts of dubious origin, there is no evidence to suggest that the universe has any purpose; it simply exists.

Those written accounts are, at best, about 2500 years old - older accounts have long since disintegrated (if they ever existed at all). Considering that the universe itself is about 13.75 x 10^9 years old, this means that whoever wrote those accounts was not an eyewitness to the origin of the universe.

So, unless there is some compelling evidence to even suggest that the universe has a purpose, then it is safe to say that it does not.

By "evidence", I do not mean any arguments from incredulity, argument by popularity of the idea, or some meaningless, convoluted word salad masking as a process of reason.

To suggest that the universe has a purpose is to make a leap of faith, and that is the realm of religion - the most insidious waste of human intellect and effort ever devised.

I want to preface this with the fact that in my opinion there is not a "grand/greater" etc purpose to the universe. However, I want to say the above quote has two very glaring faults.

The first is that the universe has at least one purpose, and it’s fairly verifiable. The purpose of the individual, or self. I know I have a purpose for the universe, therefore the universe has a purpose.

Secondly, you argue that the statement "The universe does not exist for a reason" is based on empirical evidence. Your logic is backwards, for there is no empirical evidence whatsoever to back this claim, you are simply deferring this to be true because there is no empirical evidence to the contrary.

You could argue that unless there is compelling evidence to even suggest there is not a purpose to the universe, it is safe to assume there is one. But in doing so, you make the same mistake in logic as you just did. There is no evidence, it is not safe to assume anything to be true in this case, and thus, any and all assumptions are mere opinion.

You and I seem to share the same opinion, but please do not dress it up like fact...we get enough of that in religion.