6 ms·

But who decides which rules are neutral? Even this is relative and subjective. Laws are not inherently neutral. A pH of 7 is only neutral because it is bounded

by edot 2mo ago

But who decides which rules are neutral? Even this is relative and subjective. Laws are not inherently neutral. A pH of 7 is only neutral because it is bounded by 0 on the left and 14 on the right. In a different system, perhaps it would be from 10 to 30 and thus a pH of 20 would be neutral.

rayiner 2mo ago
> But who decides which rules are neutral You’re correct that rules are themselves to an high degree arbitrary. They can only be imposed by a source of authority that’s beyond question: God(s), elders, founding fathers, kings, etc. In the case of the U.S. it’s historical inertia going back to 1215.
- inigyou 2mo ago
  Those aren't neutral, they're just Schelling points.
  - rayiner 2mo ago
    They don’t actually have to be neutral, people just have to accept them as neutral and elevate them above their own sense of right and wrong.
    - bluGill 2mo ago
      > people just have to accept them as neutral and elevate them above their own sense of right and wrong. I would say people need to accept them as neutral and make them their own sense of right and wrong. You can have a stricter personal set of right and wrong, but it needs to be something that society recognizes as a stricter in all ways.
virtualbluesky 2mo ago
In that example the number on the scale is less important than chemical properties of the solution. Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away and all that.
femto 2mo ago
The closest we have to a "neutral rule" is "The Golden Rule": "Treat others as you would like them to treat you." It has a long history, both secular and religious. Pretty well everything flows from it, and if someone is doing "the wrong thing" whilst claiming to obey it then they are probably deluding themself. The rule is suited to enforcement, since if someone does something "wrong", rather than immediately attacking them you can reasonably ask "Would you like it if I did this to you?". Limitation of power is built in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
- no-name-here 2mo ago
  I'd say expecting non-hypocrisy is also a top item. Someone says x behavior from a leader is disqualifying? OK, maybe that's their earnestly held belief and so worthy of consideration even if I disagree with their view. But if their behavior is the opposite/shows hypocrisy and suddenly isn't disqualifying? That should be a red line. Because even the "golden rule" leaves a lot of wiggle room - for example, should marital infidelity (or x) be a dealbreaker for electing someone? Maybe, but looking at hypocrisy (and thereby actions) might provide better insight as to what those groups actually believe is the "correct" standard? > The closest we have to a "neutral rule" is "The Golden Rule" Mostly agreed, but a surprisingly large percentage of the population seems truly unable to feel empathy for others (and can even show glee at others being negatively impacted by something) unless it personally affects them (a prerequisite for "Would you like it if I did this to you?" to work?). They can be gung-ho about laws that negatively affect others but upset if it affects them. For example, the countless examples of "Community members vote for politician promising illegal immigrant deportation, then upset/disagree that long-time beloved community member deported", or "Voter voted for politician promising criminal-record-immigrant deportation, then upset/disagrees that partner with past criminal record deported".
- BoingBoomTschak 2mo ago
  And lex talionis as a byproduct.
  - no-name-here 2mo ago
Sha1rholder 2mo ago
Your pH example actually proves the opposite. pH 7 is not neutral because it happens to sit halfway between 0 and 14. pH is not inherently limited to that range at all. Sufficiently concentrated solutions can have pH values below 0 or above 14. A solution is called neutral when the activities of hydrogen ions and hydroxide ions are equal, which happens to correspond to about pH 7 at 25°C. Change the temperature and neutral pH changes too. So if you arbitrarily changed the scale to 10–30, that wouldn’t magically make 20 “neutral.” Neutrality comes from the definition and the underlying conditions, not from being the midpoint between two numbers.
- HappMacDonald 2mo ago
  I know it's off topic: but I am curious and this sounds both challenging to search for and likely to not get a straight answer from an LLM. Do you happen to know if this means that water may tip from neutral to slightly alkaline or acidic at different temperatures or pressures? I have always found it .. peculiar that water just so happens to (as you aptly put it) "have all the activities of hydrogen ions and hydroxide ions equal" :)
  - Sha1rholder 2mo ago
    This isn't a difficult question. I'm sure LLM knows these things better than I do. Water is H-O-H; H+ and OH- both come from water. If there are no impurities, then for every extra H+ there is an extra OH-, so it's not that they are "happen to be equal". They're born equal. Changing the temperature does change the concentrations of these ions so pH does change by definition. But the water remains neutral, since the ratio of H⁺ to OH⁻ is still 1:1
dahart 2mo ago
Hehe, unfortunately that example undermines your otherwise good point, physical laws do not support your claim. Changing the units of a physical scale range does not change the relative position of a point inside that range, it only changes the name. 20 in a [10,30] range is still the absolute midpoint, and represents the amount of base or acid on an absolute scale. Not sure I agree with the claim that we only allow “neutral” rules. That’s not necessarily true. And of course who decides which rules are neutral depends on which rule we’re talking about, and where you live, and (important) doesn’t depend much on whether the rule is subjective or not - the same processes are used even when the rule is objective. Some rules are fairly objective because they’re tied to health & safety. All humans require clear air & water, for example. Most tolerate a little pollution due to business interests, but whether pollution is poisonous isn’t particularly subjective, aside from the debates over the economic damage from small non-lethal amounts.

by edot 2mo ago

rayiner 2mo ago

> But who decides which rules are neutral You’re correct that rules are themselves to an high degree arbitrary. They can only be imposed by a source of authority that’s beyond question: God(s), elders, founding fathers, kings, etc. In the case of the U.S. it’s historical inertia going back to 1215.

inigyou 2mo ago
Those aren't neutral, they're just Schelling points.
- rayiner 2mo ago
  They don’t actually have to be neutral, people just have to accept them as neutral and elevate them above their own sense of right and wrong.
  - bluGill 2mo ago
    > people just have to accept them as neutral and elevate them above their own sense of right and wrong. I would say people need to accept them as neutral and make them their own sense of right and wrong. You can have a stricter personal set of right and wrong, but it needs to be something that society recognizes as a stricter in all ways.

virtualbluesky 2mo ago

In that example the number on the scale is less important than chemical properties of the solution. Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away and all that.

femto 2mo ago

The closest we have to a "neutral rule" is "The Golden Rule": "Treat others as you would like them to treat you." It has a long history, both secular and religious. Pretty well everything flows from it, and if someone is doing "the wrong thing" whilst claiming to obey it then they are probably deluding themself. The rule is suited to enforcement, since if someone does something "wrong", rather than immediately attacking them you can reasonably ask "Would you like it if I did this to you?". Limitation of power is built in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

no-name-here 2mo ago
I'd say expecting non-hypocrisy is also a top item. Someone says x behavior from a leader is disqualifying? OK, maybe that's their earnestly held belief and so worthy of consideration even if I disagree with their view. But if their behavior is the opposite/shows hypocrisy and suddenly isn't disqualifying? That should be a red line. Because even the "golden rule" leaves a lot of wiggle room - for example, should marital infidelity (or x) be a dealbreaker for electing someone? Maybe, but looking at hypocrisy (and thereby actions) might provide better insight as to what those groups actually believe is the "correct" standard? > The closest we have to a "neutral rule" is "The Golden Rule" Mostly agreed, but a surprisingly large percentage of the population seems truly unable to feel empathy for others (and can even show glee at others being negatively impacted by something) unless it personally affects them (a prerequisite for "Would you like it if I did this to you?" to work?). They can be gung-ho about laws that negatively affect others but upset if it affects them. For example, the countless examples of "Community members vote for politician promising illegal immigrant deportation, then upset/disagree that long-time beloved community member deported", or "Voter voted for politician promising criminal-record-immigrant deportation, then upset/disagrees that partner with past criminal record deported".
BoingBoomTschak 2mo ago
And lex talionis as a byproduct.
- no-name-here 2mo ago

Sha1rholder 2mo ago

Your pH example actually proves the opposite. pH 7 is not neutral because it happens to sit halfway between 0 and 14. pH is not inherently limited to that range at all. Sufficiently concentrated solutions can have pH values below 0 or above 14. A solution is called neutral when the activities of hydrogen ions and hydroxide ions are equal, which happens to correspond to about pH 7 at 25°C. Change the temperature and neutral pH changes too. So if you arbitrarily changed the scale to 10–30, that wouldn’t magically make 20 “neutral.” Neutrality comes from the definition and the underlying conditions, not from being the midpoint between two numbers.

HappMacDonald 2mo ago
I know it's off topic: but I am curious and this sounds both challenging to search for and likely to not get a straight answer from an LLM. Do you happen to know if this means that water may tip from neutral to slightly alkaline or acidic at different temperatures or pressures? I have always found it .. peculiar that water just so happens to (as you aptly put it) "have all the activities of hydrogen ions and hydroxide ions equal" :)
- Sha1rholder 2mo ago
  This isn't a difficult question. I'm sure LLM knows these things better than I do. Water is H-O-H; H+ and OH- both come from water. If there are no impurities, then for every extra H+ there is an extra OH-, so it's not that they are "happen to be equal". They're born equal. Changing the temperature does change the concentrations of these ions so pH does change by definition. But the water remains neutral, since the ratio of H⁺ to OH⁻ is still 1:1

dahart 2mo ago

Hehe, unfortunately that example undermines your otherwise good point, physical laws do not support your claim. Changing the units of a physical scale range does not change the relative position of a point inside that range, it only changes the name. 20 in a [10,30] range is still the absolute midpoint, and represents the amount of base or acid on an absolute scale. Not sure I agree with the claim that we only allow “neutral” rules. That’s not necessarily true. And of course who decides which rules are neutral depends on which rule we’re talking about, and where you live, and (important) doesn’t depend much on whether the rule is subjective or not - the same processes are used even when the rule is objective. Some rules are fairly objective because they’re tied to health & safety. All humans require clear air & water, for example. Most tolerate a little pollution due to business interests, but whether pollution is poisonous isn’t particularly subjective, aside from the debates over the economic damage from small non-lethal amounts.