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

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

I understand you’re 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 it’s 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 tribe’s 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.


Someone was doing some ideological shit and justifying the means.


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. Let’s 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.


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 there’s two absolute truths I’ve 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. I’ve 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.


Obviously I’m not arguing that rules, norms, or laws are entirely unnecessary, nor am I arguing that there’s no meaning of existence.

Rather I’m stating that there’s 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). I’m 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, they’re likely to get out-competed by a society which has a more efficient organization. I’m 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 wasn’t 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.

It’s Just Time.