Re:Ask HN: Idea Sunday
by atmosx on Sunday April 13, 2014 @05:23PM
(#7583112)
In order for such a project to make sense, one must ask himself if he believes that there is one and universal truth that stands above human and physical laws. If there is such a thing, then there is a point in pursuing the truth, because truth gives the correct conclusions. If not, then there's no meaning in pursuing something that is relative.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: Idea Sunday
by Houshalter on Sunday April 13, 2014 @05:49PM
(#7583215)
Of course there is one truth. 1+1=2, Global warming either is or isn't real, gun control either does or doesn't reduce homicide rates, etc.
Aumann's Agreement Theorem suggests that two rational people can not disagree on a subject if they both fully understand all the evidence and arguments. All disagreements stem from some combination of misunderstanding, ignorance, or irrationality.
Re:Ask HN: Idea Sunday
by nileshtrivedi on Sunday April 13, 2014 @11:31PM
(#7584374)
That's only true for factual statements. It's perfectly possible to reach different conclusion starting from different moral premises.
Re:Ask HN: Idea Sunday
by Houshalter on Monday April 14, 2014 @12:16AM
(#7584513)
Then there is still only one truth and they can still come to an agreement on statements like "gun control is good if your goal is to reduce homicide rates" or "gun control is bad if your goal is to maximize personal freedom", etc.
Then it's not a matter of disagreement or coming to different conclusions, it's just having different values.
I think this works better. As someone said above, it comes down to trade offs. Arguing a point with a specific goal to work towards leads to better discussions than trying to answer questions like: "is x good or bad?"
Some questions of predicting a very distant future can't have an accurate answer today. But if we can simulate our world with a computer, try different things and see where they lead in the near future, we can answer most of our complex system/politic/economic questions.
But such a computer would obsolete humanity.