4 ms·
> Supposing there's no ultimate, objective, metaphysical thing called meaning I disagree that there can't be a rationally derived objective utility function (p
by pcwelder 3y ago
> Supposing there's no ultimate, objective, metaphysical thing called meaning
I disagree that there can't be a rationally derived objective utility function (purpose of life) that we can assign to ourselves.
For one thing, we can objectively discard some types of utility functions, for example, the utility functions that have arbitrary discontinuity in time.
One also might argue, for example, that utility functions should be approximately constant at time scales much smaller than our perception.
If no single utility function, we can at least objectively find a class of utility functions (or purpose).
- gxs 3y ago>> I disagree that there can't be a rationally derived objective utility function (purpose of life) that we can assign to ourselves. Ah, I love HN for these types of comments - I’m not even being facetious here. The author casually dismisses the idea that you make/find your own meaning, then spends the rest of the article doing exactly that. He’s trying to find an explanation for the general case, yet in the end it will be his own personal opinion explanation. Interesting article, nonetheless.