I don’t really think endless boredom is as much of a risk as others seem to. Certainly not enough to be worth lobotomizing the entire human race in order to achieve some faux state of “eternal bliss”. Consider, for example, that Godel’s Incompleteness implies there are a literal infinite number of math problems to be solved. Math not your thing? Why would we imagine there are only a finite number advancements that can be made in dance, music, poetry, etc? Are these fields less rich than mathematics somehow?
In my mind the only actual “utopia” is one of infinite endless growth and adventure. Either we continue to grow forever, discovering new and exciting things, or we die out. Any kind of “steady state utopia” is just an extended version of the latter.
I don’t think I see how Godel’s theorem implies that. Could you elaborate? Concept space is massive, but I don’t see it being literally unbounded.
Certainly not enough to be worth lobotomizing the entire human race in order to achieve some faux state of “eternal bliss”.
If we reach the point where we can safely add and edit our own emotions, I don’t think removing one emotion that we deem counterproductive would be seen as negative. We already actively try to suppress negative emotions today, why would removing it altogether be more significant in an environment where its old positives don’t apply?
Either we continue to grow forever, discovering new and exciting things, or we die out. Any kind of “steady state utopia” is just an extended version of the latter.
Why is a steady state utopia equal to us dying out? I can see why that would be somewhat true given the preference we give now to the state of excitement at discovery and novelty, but why objectively?
Godel’s incompleteness implies that the general question “is statement X true” (for arbitrary X) can never be answered by a finite set of Axioms. Hence, finding new axioms and using them to prove new sets of statements is an endless problem. Similar infinite problems exist in computability “Does program X halt?” and computational complexity “What is the Kolmogorov compexity of string X?” as well as topology “Are 2 structures which have properties X, Y, Z… in common homeomorphic?”.
Why is a steady state utopia equal to us dying out? I can see why that would be somewhat true given the preference we give now to the state of excitement at discovery and novelty, but why objectively?
I should clarify, this is a value judgement. I personally consider existing in a steady state (or a finitely repeating set of states) morally equivalent to death, since creativity is one of my “terminal” values.
If we reach the point where we can safely add and edit our own emotions, I don’t think removing one emotion that we deem counterproductive would be seen as negative.
Again, this is a value judgement. I would consider modifying my mind so that I no longer cared about learning new things morally repugnant.
It’s probably worth noting that my moral opinions seem to be in disagreement with many of the people around here, as I place much less weight on avoidance of suffering and experiencing physical bliss and much more on novelty of experience, helping others and seeking truth than the general feeling I get from people who want to maximize qualies or don’t consider orgasmium morally repugnant.
Hence, finding new axioms and using them to prove new sets of statements is an endless problem. Similar infinite problems exist in computability “Does program X halt?” and computational complexity “What is the Kolmogorov compexity of string X?” as well as topology “Are 2 structures which have properties X, Y, Z… in common homeomorphic?”.
Aren’t these single problems that deal with infinities rather than each being an infinite sequence of problems? Would that kind of infinity bring about any sense of excitement or novelty more than discovering say, the nth digit of pi?
It’s probably worth noting that my moral opinions seem to be in disagreement with many of the people around here, as I place much less weight on avoidance of suffering and experiencing physical bliss and much more on novelty of experience, helping others and seeking truth than the general feeling I get from people who want to maximize qualies or don’t consider orgasmium morally repugnant.
Out of curiosity, if we did run out of new exciting truths to discover and there was a way to feel the exact same thrill and novelty directly that you would have in those situations, would you take it?
Aren’t these single problems that deal with infinities rather than each being an infinite sequence of problems? Would that kind of infinity bring about any sense of excitement or novelty more than discovering say, the nth digit of pi?
The n-th digit of pi is computable, meaning there exists a deterministic algorithm that runs in finite time and always gives you the right answer. The n-th busy bever number is not, meaning that discovering it will require new advancements in mathematics to figure it out. I’m not claiming that you personally will find that problem interesting (although mathematicians certainly do). I’m claiming that it is likely that whatever field you do find interesting probably has similar classes of problems with a literally inexhaustible supply of interesting problems.
Out of curiosity, if we did run out of new exciting truths to discover and there was a way to feel the exact same thrill and novelty directly that you would have in those situations, would you take it?
No. I would consider such a technology abhorrent for the same reason I consider taking a drug that would make me feel infinitely happy forever abhorrent. I would literally prefer death to such a state. If such a mindset seems unfathomable to you, consider reading the death of Socrates since he expresses the idea that there are things worse than death much more eloquently than I can.
I don’t really think endless boredom is as much of a risk as others seem to. Certainly not enough to be worth lobotomizing the entire human race in order to achieve some faux state of “eternal bliss”. Consider, for example, that Godel’s Incompleteness implies there are a literal infinite number of math problems to be solved. Math not your thing? Why would we imagine there are only a finite number advancements that can be made in dance, music, poetry, etc? Are these fields less rich than mathematics somehow?
In my mind the only actual “utopia” is one of infinite endless growth and adventure. Either we continue to grow forever, discovering new and exciting things, or we die out. Any kind of “steady state utopia” is just an extended version of the latter.
I don’t think I see how Godel’s theorem implies that. Could you elaborate? Concept space is massive, but I don’t see it being literally unbounded.
If we reach the point where we can safely add and edit our own emotions, I don’t think removing one emotion that we deem counterproductive would be seen as negative. We already actively try to suppress negative emotions today, why would removing it altogether be more significant in an environment where its old positives don’t apply?
Why is a steady state utopia equal to us dying out? I can see why that would be somewhat true given the preference we give now to the state of excitement at discovery and novelty, but why objectively?
Godel’s incompleteness implies that the general question “is statement X true” (for arbitrary X) can never be answered by a finite set of Axioms. Hence, finding new axioms and using them to prove new sets of statements is an endless problem. Similar infinite problems exist in computability “Does program X halt?” and computational complexity “What is the Kolmogorov compexity of string X?” as well as topology “Are 2 structures which have properties X, Y, Z… in common homeomorphic?”.
I should clarify, this is a value judgement. I personally consider existing in a steady state (or a finitely repeating set of states) morally equivalent to death, since creativity is one of my “terminal” values.
Again, this is a value judgement. I would consider modifying my mind so that I no longer cared about learning new things morally repugnant.
It’s probably worth noting that my moral opinions seem to be in disagreement with many of the people around here, as I place much less weight on avoidance of suffering and experiencing physical bliss and much more on novelty of experience, helping others and seeking truth than the general feeling I get from people who want to maximize qualies or don’t consider orgasmium morally repugnant.
Aren’t these single problems that deal with infinities rather than each being an infinite sequence of problems? Would that kind of infinity bring about any sense of excitement or novelty more than discovering say, the nth digit of pi?
Out of curiosity, if we did run out of new exciting truths to discover and there was a way to feel the exact same thrill and novelty directly that you would have in those situations, would you take it?
The n-th digit of pi is computable, meaning there exists a deterministic algorithm that runs in finite time and always gives you the right answer. The n-th busy bever number is not, meaning that discovering it will require new advancements in mathematics to figure it out. I’m not claiming that you personally will find that problem interesting (although mathematicians certainly do). I’m claiming that it is likely that whatever field you do find interesting probably has similar classes of problems with a literally inexhaustible supply of interesting problems.
No. I would consider such a technology abhorrent for the same reason I consider taking a drug that would make me feel infinitely happy forever abhorrent. I would literally prefer death to such a state. If such a mindset seems unfathomable to you, consider reading the death of Socrates since he expresses the idea that there are things worse than death much more eloquently than I can.
What reasons are those? I can understand the idea that there are things worse than death, but I don’t see what part of this makes it qualify.
Can you imagine why taking a drug that made you feel happy forever but cut you off from reality might be perceived as worse than death?