3 ms·

It's highly rational. Reduce Entropy. Period

by socmag 10y ago

posterboy 10y ago
Doesn't mean you should write your comment by the same principle. Reducing entropy by growing more complex seems counterintuitive. I don't see rationality in the chaos. I don't even see what your "It" is. Attribution of rational reason to an "it" seems like a short cut leading to a domain error. Ultimately this leads to discussion about free will and what not, for which a short-lived discussion does indeed not seem to be the right format.
- socmag 10y ago
  Well Hacker News is definitely not the medium for this discussion, I'll grant you that. It's not clear to me where is a better choice. Could go for phys.org or stackoverflow I guess, but equally inane. Nobody likes to talk about metaphysics, which is what this is really about I guess. For good reason I suppose. Then again, before Darwin and Einstein, everything was very clear. Right now very rational people are looking into string theory, pilot wave theory, simulated universes and a heck of a lot more. Meanwhile, we are attempting to build self driving cars, automated systems that tempt us to buy crap we don't need and reduce the planet to a winner takes all philosophy. Nothing about that seems "Human" Entertain me on why the universe isn't trying to build its own god. Happy to take the discussion elsewhere.
  - posterboy 10y ago
    I am not going to entertain you on that. Nevermind I can't tell how serious you are because written text loses a lot of context, I'm just not going to tempt you when you introduced the whole idea saying you are tired of atheist arguments. Let's say I am a skeptic and if you make extraordinary claims, they better had been convincing. I'll give you that "exist to exist", or an autonym god, for lack of a better word, seems to be a logical fix-point, which is notable given the name Y Combinator. At that point I want to quote wikipedia, which would mean I am out of my waters and shouldn't be baiting for someone to correct my ad-hoc interpretation. All that to say, this argument is trite indeed.

It's highly rational. Reduce Entropy. Period

by socmag 10y ago

It's highly rational. Reduce Entropy. Period

Doesn't mean you should write your comment by the same principle. Reducing entropy by growing more complex seems counterintuitive. I don't see rationality in the chaos. I don't even see what your "It" is. Attribution of rational reason to an "it" seems like a short cut leading to a domain error. Ultimately this leads to discussion about free will and what not, for which a short-lived discussion does indeed not seem to be the right format.

socmag 10y ago
Well Hacker News is definitely not the medium for this discussion, I'll grant you that. It's not clear to me where is a better choice. Could go for phys.org or stackoverflow I guess, but equally inane. Nobody likes to talk about metaphysics, which is what this is really about I guess. For good reason I suppose. Then again, before Darwin and Einstein, everything was very clear. Right now very rational people are looking into string theory, pilot wave theory, simulated universes and a heck of a lot more. Meanwhile, we are attempting to build self driving cars, automated systems that tempt us to buy crap we don't need and reduce the planet to a winner takes all philosophy. Nothing about that seems "Human" Entertain me on why the universe isn't trying to build its own god. Happy to take the discussion elsewhere.
- posterboy 10y ago
  I am not going to entertain you on that. Nevermind I can't tell how serious you are because written text loses a lot of context, I'm just not going to tempt you when you introduced the whole idea saying you are tired of atheist arguments. Let's say I am a skeptic and if you make extraordinary claims, they better had been convincing. I'll give you that "exist to exist", or an autonym god, for lack of a better word, seems to be a logical fix-point, which is notable given the name Y Combinator. At that point I want to quote wikipedia, which would mean I am out of my waters and shouldn't be baiting for someone to correct my ad-hoc interpretation. All that to say, this argument is trite indeed.