Quote from: sidhujag on October 08, 2017, 12:00:36 AM

I think its time to sell.. crypto is a safe haven

Lol.

Quote from: CoinCube on October 08, 2017, 02:32:19 AM

Question 1: God according to all of the major monotheistic religions is omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence(unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), and had an an eternal and necessary existence. As you have chosen apriori to believe that there is no absolute truth and that omniscience is impossible how can you reconcile these views with a belief in God, Jesus, or religion of any kind?

If only God is omnipresent, then I have no way to observe or comprehend Gods existence. At best, due the Shannon-Nyquist Sampling Theorem, I would at best only have aliasing error. The most I can have is a belief.

So in my closet (Matthew 6:5) I might choose to console with my belief, but I wouldnt feel empowered with sufficient knowledge to tell someone else (or judge) what they MUST believe in order to achieve something. I might as well be speaking out of my ass, rather than make up stupid reasons to justify why my advice doesnt work for everyone.

Quote from: CoinCube on October 08, 2017, 02:32:19 AM

Question 2: You argue that there is no right answer about what to do in life, except the one each person chooses. How is your view anything other then a conclusion that the ends justify the means?

Im delighted you did not make the mistake of using the word belief in this second question, because youre correct that I argued logically for this perspective based on my understanding of the reality of the Universe.

I explained that theres no absolute (total ordering) ends, thus theres no valid justification of means. Moreover, I argued that ideological (i.e. the feigning of absolute truth) ends are foolish.

I understand youre pointing out that without a moral compass, you believe that civilization will lose a common purpose and that many ills will plague society, such as promiscuity and lack of k selection, or the use of ransomware in order to become wealthy. But the free market deals with that. Societies perish and others thrive. Diversity (greater uncertainty thus higher entropy) provides for resilience. It occurs to me that an absolute truth or morality would not be antifragile, because there would be no alternatives adapted to differing scenarios.

Thus I think ideology and morality are actually the most amoral.

I might love my neighbor, because I like the observable outcomes or my private belief in a God, not because its supposed to be some absolute truth about morally correctness which everyone must follow in order for it to be successful.

I personally like the do unto others as you would want them to do to you. This is how I feel about a society that cares for each other, and I think this works only on the local level though not at large scale collectivism. At large scale, there is massive defection the cheaters escape the Dunbar limit of a tribes ability to efficiently squelch defection. For example, although I might want to offer free health care to every person, the scammers would find a way to extract profits from my generosity creating a non-meritorious misallocation of capital which can make the outcome uncompetitive.

Quote from: CoinCube on October 08, 2017, 02:32:19 AM

Question 3: You mention evil several times but seem to have adopted a set of assumptions that precludes the existence of evil. How do you define evil?

Someone was doing some ideological shit and justifying the means.

Quote from: CoinCube on October 08, 2017, 02:32:19 AM

Can evil exist under your assumptions? If the only thing that matters is observed consequences why is it wrong to steal from or kill my enemies if I can get away with it or to take from the weak because that is the natural order of things?

Nothing morally wrong with stealing if its not in support of some lie about absolute truth. However, you might consider if that is the society that you want to live in and whether there even exists a society that wants to accept you. Lets make sure we have an agreed definition of morals. Morals that are an absolute truth or morals that are just accepted norm of a particular society but do not have the ideological power of being claimed to be absolute truth.

Quote from: CoinCube on October 08, 2017, 02:32:19 AM

Question 4: You mentioned that your belief that actions have observable consequences makes your views a separate entity from nihilism yet a belief in cause and effect is entirely compatible with nihilism. The foundation of nihilism is the belief that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Nihilists also assert that there is no inherent morality, and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived. When you say that your beliefs are not nihilism are you saying that you disagree with the nihilist on these issues or simply that you have reached the same conclusions via different means?

Afaik, Nihilists do not reject ideological (absolute truth or forced imposition of beliefs) pursuits as amoral and differentiate that activity from any other activity w.r.t. to the issue of morality. So I guess you can conclude theres two absolute truths Ive arrived at:

1. Universal trend towards maximum entropy.
2. Amorality of absolute truths (other than these two objective ones).

My brief sketch of nihilism is that it is devoid of preference for purpose and meaning. I have not rejected the ability of the individual to choose a meaning or purpose. Ive only rejected their nonsense of trying to tell me to involve me in their meaning if I do not wish to be, even passing judgement on me and what will happen to me, and thus slippery sliding into being forced to take control over me.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

The term is sometimes used in association with anomie to explain the general mood of despair at a perceived pointlessness of existence that one may develop upon realising there are no necessary norms, rules, or laws.

Obviously Im not arguing that rules, norms, or laws are entirely unnecessary, nor am I arguing that theres no meaning of existence.

Rather Im stating that theres no observable absolute truth about these matters, although one could certainly argue for their experience and knowledge of history and argue why some historical observations should continue, but nothing is observably perpetual in our Universe (and we do not observe in perpetuity nor can we even observe everything in any given iota spacetime slice). Im arguing for a free market of choices. If some group wants to try to enslave another, if that activity is not the most economic or fruitful, theyre likely to get out-competed by a society which has a more efficient organization. Im confident the maximum division-of-labor destroys (chattel and I argued eventually Theory of the Firm) slavery, as I had explained in great detail in my past writings which you cited in your Economic Devastation thread, as well as my blog Information is Alive!

The USA Civil War wasnt really a battle about slavery, because economics was going to take care of that any way, rather it was a battle about consolidating the economies-of-scale of the United States at the time when territorial consolidation was economically valuable (the two major oceans of the earth on each coast and the Mississippi river bisecting North-to-South). And now with the Internet (as you have written about), it is about separating into efficient autonomous locales that foster the maximum division-of-labor.

Its Just Time.