6 ms·

"many of the things that make life worth living aren’t measurable at all, or if they are measurable then they aren’t comparable. How many dinners with family eq

"many of the things that make life worth living aren’t measurable at all, or if they are measurable then they aren’t comparable. How many dinners with family equal one random act of kindness?" I think there is a dangerous mysticism in this idea of the immeasurable, incomparable, and unfalsifiable value judgement. It may be difficult to reason about the value of family dinners or acts of kindness, and more difficult still to calculate or approximate some kind of dinners-per-kindness measurement, but that's a different thing entirely from claiming there is not and cannot be such a measurement. For example, you could adopt the axes from the rest of the article, and ask questions like "how much of my money and/or free time would I give up for a family dinner?" "how much would I give up for a random act of kindness?" "is there a minimum amount of money and/or free time I need to be able to afford family dinners or acts of kindness?" "if I only had enough to afford one of the two, which would I choose?" Saying "my values are complex and I don't know how to reason about them" is the start of a series of interesting questions that ultimately yields a better understanding of yourself. Saying "my values are so complex that they cannot be reasoned about" is anti-intellectualism dressed up as profundity; it's nothing more than an excuse to stop trying to understand. Worse, the entire foundation of the premise is rotten. Oh, sure, rational thinking is great for measuring laser waves or whatever, but can you reason about the beauty of a sunset, the warmth of a lover's embrace, the blissful confusion of waking from a nap on a summer afternoon? Yes you can. And the sooner you stop thinking that significance demands ignorance, the sooner you can start understanding and improving the things that are most important to you.

dasil003 9y ago
You seem to have an axe to grind with mysticism, but rationality != measurement. Here you are totally constructing a straw man from whole cloth: > "my values are complex and I don't know how to reason about them" The article implies nothing of the sort.
hyencomper 9y ago
That would still be quantifying values against the tangible axes of time and/or money. There are still various other intangible factors such as happiness, goodwill etc which are immeasurable, yet contribute to the overall picture.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  They are definitely measurable (by virtue of being a part of a physical process happening in the real world), we just haven't figured out a proper framework for them yet. Eventually, hopefully, we will.
  - mpweiher 9y ago
    > They are definitely measurable No, not "definitely". You are assuming they are because "reasons". However, we have no idea whether those "reasons" apply, or whether they mean something is measurable. You may have an argument that they should be measurable, but that's a far cry from "they are definitely". A little humility is a Good Thing™
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      It's not about humility. The only way for them to be not measurable in principle is if they were running out-of-band on a supernatural plane, magically inaccessible and yet affecting the real world. Because unless you assume magic, everything that affects the real world in any way is observable and thus measurable, by definition. We have no good evidence so far to believe in magic.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    >They are definitely measurable (by virtue of being a part of a physical process happening in the real world) Everything is definitely measureable? How did you solve the Measurement Problem? It seems to have all the other quantum physicists stumped. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem The problem with saying "everything in reality is physical/material", is that we don't even know what that is on a quantum level.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      Measurement problem is a problem of our understanding of the quantum world, but otherwise a feature of the entire universe, not a human limitation - and definitely not a license for magic under the hood.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
wu-ikkyu 9y ago
>the beauty of a sunset, the warmth of a lover's embrace, the blissful confusion of waking from a nap on a summer afternoon? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but it seems like your only way of appreciating the value of such experiences is by determining a monetary opportunity cost?
- mmirate 9y ago
  That is probably because the only way of evaluating a noneducational experience is via opportunity costs. (The adjective "monetary" is redundant when discussing evaluations and costs.) Obviously, educational experiences can be evaluated as any other investment.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    >the only way of evaluating a noneducational experience is via opportunity costs. What about human feelings (e.g. mental/physical health)? Are those important in evaluating experiences? >(The adjective "monetary" is redundant when discussing evaluations and costs.) The definition of opportunity cost does not mandate that the "cost" is monetary.
    - mmirate 9y ago
      > What about human feelings (e.g. mental/physical health)? Are those important in evaluating experiences? If, and only if, they have a monetary effect. For example a professional foot-racer becoming more healthy by X amount means the expected value of him/her running a race increases by some $Y amount (due to higher probability of winning a [higher] prize). > The definition of opportunity cost does not mandate that the "cost" is monetary. The cost in-question is important if and only if it is equivalent to some loss of (monetary) value.
      - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
        What is the monetary effect of a beautiful sunset and the warmth of a lover's embrace?
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>I think there is a dangerous mysticism in this idea of the immeasurable, incomparable, and unfalsifiable value judgement. In what sense is it dangerous and in what sense is it mysticism? It's actually kind of an interesting philosophical question, I linked to some background reading at the end of this post. >Saying "my values are so complex that they cannot be reasoned about" is anti-intellectualism dressed up as profundity; it's nothing more than an excuse to stop trying to understand. It's not anti-intellectual, it's a different intellectual viewpoint from yours. >Oh, sure, rational thinking is great for measuring laser waves or whatever, but can you reason about the beauty of a sunset, the warmth of a lover's embrace, the blissful confusion of waking from a nap on a summer afternoon? This isn't an anti-rational viewpoint. [1] https://philpapers.org/archive/CHAIAI-2.pdf https://philpapers.org/archive/CHAIAI-2.pdf [2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-incommensurable/#ValInc https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-incommensurable/#Va... [3] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-theory/#Inc https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-theory/#Inc [4] http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674447561 http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674447561
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > It's not anti-intellectual, it's a different intellectual viewpoint from yours. It is anti-intellectual, in the sense that it posits a separate magisterium of things "too complex to reason about" (or sometimes, "too profound to dare and reason about") and asks to give up the attempt. That way lies supernatural.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    Do you think humans can gain omniscience using the scientific method?
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      No. Though I am implying that we can get asymptotically close to omniscience (to the extent it's allowed by physics; full omniscience would probably have infinite energy requirements anywy) through the systems we build - which include mental frameworks, organizational structures and computing devices.
techiferous 9y ago
"dangerous", "worse", "rotten"... The tone of your response has piqued my curiosity more than the content of your response. Why such a strong, negative reaction?

dasil003 9y ago

You seem to have an axe to grind with mysticism, but rationality != measurement. Here you are totally constructing a straw man from whole cloth: > "my values are complex and I don't know how to reason about them" The article implies nothing of the sort.

hyencomper 9y ago

That would still be quantifying values against the tangible axes of time and/or money. There are still various other intangible factors such as happiness, goodwill etc which are immeasurable, yet contribute to the overall picture.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
They are definitely measurable (by virtue of being a part of a physical process happening in the real world), we just haven't figured out a proper framework for them yet. Eventually, hopefully, we will.
- mpweiher 9y ago
  > They are definitely measurable No, not "definitely". You are assuming they are because "reasons". However, we have no idea whether those "reasons" apply, or whether they mean something is measurable. You may have an argument that they should be measurable, but that's a far cry from "they are definitely". A little humility is a Good Thing™
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    It's not about humility. The only way for them to be not measurable in principle is if they were running out-of-band on a supernatural plane, magically inaccessible and yet affecting the real world. Because unless you assume magic, everything that affects the real world in any way is observable and thus measurable, by definition. We have no good evidence so far to believe in magic.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  >They are definitely measurable (by virtue of being a part of a physical process happening in the real world) Everything is definitely measureable? How did you solve the Measurement Problem? It seems to have all the other quantum physicists stumped. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem The problem with saying "everything in reality is physical/material", is that we don't even know what that is on a quantum level.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Measurement problem is a problem of our understanding of the quantum world, but otherwise a feature of the entire universe, not a human limitation - and definitely not a license for magic under the hood.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

wu-ikkyu 9y ago

>the beauty of a sunset, the warmth of a lover's embrace, the blissful confusion of waking from a nap on a summer afternoon? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but it seems like your only way of appreciating the value of such experiences is by determining a monetary opportunity cost?

mmirate 9y ago
That is probably because the only way of evaluating a noneducational experience is via opportunity costs. (The adjective "monetary" is redundant when discussing evaluations and costs.) Obviously, educational experiences can be evaluated as any other investment.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  >the only way of evaluating a noneducational experience is via opportunity costs. What about human feelings (e.g. mental/physical health)? Are those important in evaluating experiences? >(The adjective "monetary" is redundant when discussing evaluations and costs.) The definition of opportunity cost does not mandate that the "cost" is monetary.
  - mmirate 9y ago
    > What about human feelings (e.g. mental/physical health)? Are those important in evaluating experiences? If, and only if, they have a monetary effect. For example a professional foot-racer becoming more healthy by X amount means the expected value of him/her running a race increases by some $Y amount (due to higher probability of winning a [higher] prize). > The definition of opportunity cost does not mandate that the "cost" is monetary. The cost in-question is important if and only if it is equivalent to some loss of (monetary) value.
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      What is the monetary effect of a beautiful sunset and the warmth of a lover's embrace?

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

>I think there is a dangerous mysticism in this idea of the immeasurable, incomparable, and unfalsifiable value judgement. In what sense is it dangerous and in what sense is it mysticism? It's actually kind of an interesting philosophical question, I linked to some background reading at the end of this post. >Saying "my values are so complex that they cannot be reasoned about" is anti-intellectualism dressed up as profundity; it's nothing more than an excuse to stop trying to understand. It's not anti-intellectual, it's a different intellectual viewpoint from yours. >Oh, sure, rational thinking is great for measuring laser waves or whatever, but can you reason about the beauty of a sunset, the warmth of a lover's embrace, the blissful confusion of waking from a nap on a summer afternoon? This isn't an anti-rational viewpoint. [1] https://philpapers.org/archive/CHAIAI-2.pdf https://philpapers.org/archive/CHAIAI-2.pdf [2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-incommensurable/#ValInc https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-incommensurable/#Va... [3] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-theory/#Inc https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-theory/#Inc [4] http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674447561 http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674447561

TeMPOraL 9y ago
> It's not anti-intellectual, it's a different intellectual viewpoint from yours. It is anti-intellectual, in the sense that it posits a separate magisterium of things "too complex to reason about" (or sometimes, "too profound to dare and reason about") and asks to give up the attempt. That way lies supernatural.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  Do you think humans can gain omniscience using the scientific method?
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    No. Though I am implying that we can get asymptotically close to omniscience (to the extent it's allowed by physics; full omniscience would probably have infinite energy requirements anywy) through the systems we build - which include mental frameworks, organizational structures and computing devices.

techiferous 9y ago

"dangerous", "worse", "rotten"... The tone of your response has piqued my curiosity more than the content of your response. Why such a strong, negative reaction?