/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9796058]

There is no such thing as subjectivity. That means morality isn't subjective neither is anything else. Everything can be reasoned through and optimized for the most optimal objective.

[Anonymous No.9796063]

>There is no such thing as subjectivity. That means morality isn't subjective neither is anything else. Everything can be reasoned through and optimized for the most optimal objective.
not science or math

[Anonymous No.9796374]

>>9796058
You are a retard. Everything you said is wrong.
>the most optimal objective.
That would be something like killing all humans, using your premises

[Anonymous No.9796777]

>>9796374
So what if it is? It probably isn't. We're simply not smart enough to do this yet. There's no inherent reason why we can't figure out the objectively best way of doing existence eventually.
Same with proving cause and effect. You can doubt everything except your own existence because "you think therefore you are" but that isn't the upper limit. One day we'll be able to link minds and then the circle of things you can't doubt will grow larger.
Things like that.

[Anonymous No.9796808]

>>9796058
>optimal optimization
Written like a true CSfag.

[Anonymous No.9796836]

>>9796058

in theory yes. I tend to compare morality to a game without full information though, and it becomes hard because of that ;) for the same reason you can't find an algorithm to perfectly play poker but you could for chess.

[Anonymous No.9796907]

I'm not a CSfag. Just in accordance with hard determinism everything follows from everything else. So, nothing can really be subjective. Even things classically thought of as subjective. Since science is the only thing that can determine anything approaching a truth about reality, science can be used to unsubjectify everything. Which is the most objective choice. Just doing science does this implicitly. I'm saying we should start explicitly demystifying everything so everyone can be on a level.

[Anonymous No.9796928]

>>9796777
>objectively best
>optimized for the most optimal objective
In order to optimize, we need a measurement of error. Where's the objective metric to measure our error compared to an 'optimal' state?
How could we ever discover it?

[Anonymous No.9796946]

>>9796058
This board exists because you believe it exists and this is the answer you wanted to see.

[Anonymous No.9796956]

>>9796946
nobody has an argument
Is it because I'm right? Or wrong? Maybe I should do some science to find out.
But real talk I'm right. People are just gonna do scientism without admitting it.
And society is gonna advance slower than it could.

[Anonymous No.9796962]

>>9796058
>There is no such thing as subjectivity
Not true, quantum mechanics is entirely subjective i.e not realist.

[Anonymous No.9796963]

>>9796928
logical consistency with respect to correct knowledge would be the error measurement

[Anonymous No.9796977]

>>9796058
Objectively, there is no such thing as "morality". Objectively, matter exists in space, and interacts based on a set of laws, and that's it, there is no "why" to it.
To optimize for something, you need a goal, an objective, and on a universal scale, there isn't one. You could say that dispersion of energy into a uniform state is a final result, but it's not a goal.
Living entities define goals, because we just happen to have emerged from self-replicating patterns - ones that never intended to replicate, just "accidentally" did as they followed the laws of physics. But those goals are entirely dependent on the entity at hand, and contradictory - you cannot optimize the universe in a way where "every atom in the universe becomes Humans" or "every atom in the universe becomes Dogs".

[Anonymous No.9796981]

Every scientific study has implications for everything including philosophical things. "What is a human?" used to be a philosophical question. Now we know what a human is with reasonable effectiveness. Science can ultimately answer any question so science is objective on it's own. Just because you don't necessarily explore all the implications of science it doesn't mean they're not there.

[Anonymous No.9796996]

>>9796981
>Now we know what a human is with reasonable effectiveness
no we don't, because "human" is a nebulous vague self-applied term. Science cannot tell you what was "the first human", as the transition from a semi-intelligent ape to a "human" was gradual. It's us, humans, who must decide where to begin applying the label.
If humans started mutating, science could also not tell you at which point they stop being "humans" and begin being something else. Nor if you started disassembling a human, and replacing him with bits of other animals or machinery.
Ship of Theseus is an unsolvable philosophical problems

[Anonymous No.9797008]

>>9796996
no they're false dilemmas
>reasonable effectiveness
Now all we need to do is objectively determine what "reasonable effectiveness" is and then we can really classify what we should consider 'human' in black-and-white terms
This can be done with every single thing

[Anonymous No.9797021]

>>9797008
then come back when you define what "reasonable effectiveness" is in scientific term.
Because as far as our civilization is concerned at the moment, "reasonable effectiveness" varies wildly whether you're talking about measuring the distance between planets, curing cancer, killing flies flying around your room, and collecting all the pokemon pogs.

[Anonymous No.9797024]

Consider the whole "when is a pile of sand not a pile of sand anymore" thing.
Well maybe it's only a pile of sand when it's less than 500kg and greater than 5 grams mass. "But that's just an arbitrary range!"
Yes it is but say there's psychological research to suggest the human mind doesn't subconsciously register it to be a pile of sand outside of the mass range specified. Then who are you to say it's an invalid assignment just because it's arbitrary. Unless you have some better research.

[Anonymous No.9797027]

>>9796374
>You are a retard.
You're. Idiot.

[Anonymous No.9797250]

>>9796808
>he wants sub-optimal optimization

[Anonymous No.9797766]

>>9796996
where we decide to apply the term "human" is governed by science too
None of it is subjective
things logically follow from science that have implications for the forced dilemmas that people call "grey areas"
it's all reducible, even if I can't do it myself

[Anonymous No.9797769]

>>9796058
The true goal of humanity is to do away with all subjectivity. The gap between mind and reality will slowly shrink, until they are one and the same. Then it can be said that consciousness is reality experiencing its true self.

[Anonymous No.9797801]

>>9797250
Almost every company operates on the principal that their systems will be sub optimal.

[Anonymous No.9797803]

>>9796058
Long story short science is objective by proxy and has everything to say about morality and other "subjective" things.
I'm serious.

[Anonymous No.9797818]

>>9796058
no no no, what I'm saying is the you CAN get an ought from an is
People actually do it all the time

[Anonymous No.9797852]

>>9797818
>you CAN get an ought from an is
this, we just just have to figure out what the best ought is (which doesn't require getting an ought from an is)

[Anonymous No.9797860]

>>9797852
aw shit
There is a way
hypothetically, logic based on empirical evidence doesn't have this incompleteness sort of thing

[Anonymous No.9797861]

>>9796907
lmao

[Anonymous No.9797865]

>>9797861
well if we can make science objective we can make our "oughts" objective too

[Anonymous No.9797870]

>>9797865
No, because of one fatal flaw:
>>9796907
>Just in accordance with hard determinism everything follows from everything else
Hard determinism, as well as determinism in general, is false.
This universe is stochastic, and the Platonic realm is infinite.

[Anonymous No.9797889]

>>9797870
it can still be deterministic if it's stochastic

[Anonymous No.9797898]

>>9796058
alrite fuck you all I was wrong