LbNC4ghq

1
2FritzToday at 9:19 AM
3https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z9U-tQ5RIw
4YouTube
5Isaac Arthur
6Why Life Exists
7
8"to expedite the heat death of the universe"
9good an answer as any I suppose.
10
11FruitFrakkerToday at 12:48 PM
12skimmed a bit of it
13i don't think there's really a 'why' there, which I know he addresses, but it's like
14you know, is-ought
15
16FritzToday at 12:53 PM
17I goes into the teleological problem though and how it isn't really something that can be meaningfully addressed, since that's not how nature observably operates, but also how there are still non-teleological explanations.
18
19FruitFrakkerToday at 1:17 PM
20i don't think it's a particularly interesting question within the realm of science, that's more like, the realm of metaphysics and personal philosophy/religiosity
21which i feel have the most like, meaningful answers to why living beings exist
22
23FritzToday at 1:18 PM
24I find those answers to be meaningless myself, and that teleology is best used as a purely emergent property of nature, rather than anything intrinsic to it.
25
26FruitFrakkerToday at 1:22 PM
27Uh, have you ever heard of Is-Ought? You can't determine how things should be from how they are; you can't derive 'meaning' purely by 'scientific' means, you always bring some sort of philosophic paradigm to the table.
28
29FritzToday at 1:25 PM
30Yes, I have heard of Is-Ought, and no, I'm not trying to derive meaning. In fact, I'm pretty much a nihlist who thinks meaning doesn't inherently exist. My point about emergent teleology is more about how things will be, not how they should be. Langton's Ant Simulator for example has the emergent teleology purpose that the ant will form a highway. That isn't necessarily an "Ought" statement, but it is still true, at least near as I can tell.
31
32FruitFrakkerToday at 1:28 PM
33But that isn't a why though, this is just 'a thing that will happen'; that has nothing to do with 'why' we exist, so it's like... it's pointless to answering that question. To me the why is purely subjective
34
35FritzToday at 1:34 PM
36Well that comes back to the two different types of why that the video mentioned towards the start. Like I said, I see purpose as an emergent property in nature, so seeing if things skew this way or that is the best way to divine said purpose. Of course, that doesn't address the ought aspect, but that part is purely subjective in my purview.
37
38FruitFrakkerToday at 1:35 PM
39Purpose is ought, there is no such thing as 'purpose' outside of like, human construction of such
40things just are
41they don't have any 'goal'
42
43FritzToday at 1:37 PM
44I know, but through emergent properties they can behave as if they have one.
45
46FruitFrakkerToday at 2:48 PM
47what does that mean? Purpose is a human construct, this is all just human pattern formation
48
49FritzToday at 2:50 PM
50All of reality can be described as a "human pattern formation" if I am understanding you correctly. So it really doesn't matter if concepts exist with an intrinsic purpose, only that they observably behave as though one exists.
51
52FruitFrakkerToday at 5:51 PM
53but... anyone can create a paradigm that fits observed phenomena; there's a fundamental disconnect here
54we're not deriving the purpose from nature
55we're observing nature and imposing a purpose onto it.