To expound on JoshuaZ’s point, would chess have rules even if there were no minds?
Are the rules of chess objective and independent of anyone actually, y’know, knowing them?
ETA: Furthermore, if two agents in a place where chess has never existed come across a chess set, and they have a disagreement about what the rules might be, is one of them right and the other wrong?
There’s exactly one function which is objectively the function which returns 1 for just those moves where a pawn moves one space, or two spaces on the first move, or the bishop moves diagonally, or the king moves one space, where none of the moves intersect other pieces without capturing, etc...
As I said, not every mind will care to evaluate this function.
As for whether mathematical objects exist… is this important? It really adds up to the same thing, either way.
There’s exactly one function which is objectively the function which returns 1 for just those moves where a pawn moves one space, or two spaces on the first move, or the bishop moves diagonally, or the king moves one space, where none of the moves intersect other pieces without capturing, etc...
Yes, of course. I wasn’t arguing anything else. The person I was contending with is a moral realist, who would say that the function which represents those rules, the rules under which we play chess now, is the correct set of rules, and that this correctness is objective and independent of the minds of chess players.
This person would, I presume, argue that if suddenly every chess player in the world at the same time agreed to eliminate en passant from the game of chess, that they would then be playing the game “wrong”.
That is the position which I find nonsensical. I’m not arguing for anything bizarre here. I’m a Bayesian rationalist and a reductionist and yes I have read the sequences.
The person I was contending with is a moral realist, who would say that the function which represents those rules, the rules under which we play chess now, is the correct set of rules, and that this correctness is objective and independent of the minds of chess players.
I explained the point I was making and that wasn’t it: The point was what obligation/compulsion means. It doesn’t mean it is physically impossible to
do what is morally forbidden. It doesn’t mean it is an edict you will be punished for
disobeying. It does mean that it is logically impossible to be moral (or rational or a chess player) after having significantly departed from the rules.
This person would, I presume, argue that if suddenly every chess player in the world at the same time agreed to eliminate en passant from the game of chess, that they would then be playing the game “wrong”.
They would be playing a different game..chess 2.0 or chess++. Plainly,
you can’t have one player using the revised rules and her opponent the old ones.
With your chess analogy, those moves that are forbidden are set by human minds and decisions. The game of chess itself is a product of human intelligence, and they can change the rules over time, and indeed they have.
Are you saying that morality works the same way? That what is morally forbidden are those things which most people find objectionable / assign negative value to?
They would be playing a different game..chess 2.0 or chess++. Plainly, you can’t have one player using the revised rules and her opponent the old ones.
Dude, you just said a minute ago that the word “chess” could be a family of different but related rulesets when I asked about castling, but now when it comes to changing en passant the game becomes something else entirely? I think you should respond to my question on that thread about a precise explanation of what you mean by “chess”, as I cannot figure out why some things count and others do not.
If you vary the way games work too much, you end with useless non-games (winning is undefinable, one player always wins...)
If you vary the way rationality works too much, you end up with paradox, quodlibet etc.
If you vary the rules of meta ethics too much, you end up with anyone being allowed to do anything, or nobody being allowed to do anything.
“The rules are made up” doesn’t mean the rules are abitrary.
There is a family of chess-type games, and they are different games, because they
are not intersubstitutable.
One could identify many different sets of rules for chess mathematically, but is one of them objectively the “correct” set of rules?
I find that perplexing. Perhaps you mean many sets of rules could be used to play games with chess boards and pieces. But they are not all chess. Chess is its rules.
Same rules+differrent pieces=same game. Different rules+same pieces=different game.
Chess is its rules. Same rules+differrent pieces=same game. Different rules+same pieces=different game.
This isn’t strictly speaking true. Note that there have many different games called chess. For example, pawns being able to move 2 squares on their first move, en passant, castling, and the queen being able to move as she can, are all recent innovations. But let’s put that aside and explore your analogy. If there’s one thing called “morality” then I fail to see how that isn’t but one game among many. You seem to be treating morality like chess (in that there’s an objective thing that is or is not chess) but are then bringing along for the particular game called “morality” all sorts of assumptions about whether or not people should play it or expect to play it. This seems akin to asserting that because there’s only one objective game called “chess” that entities “should” play it.
In Italy one can still find older chess players who use an alternative castling rule, from when castling was first being introduced, called “free castling” in which the rook can take any of the squares between itself and the king, or the king’s position, rather than the single permitted position (depending on the side) of the more common castling rules we play with today.
Is one of these versions the “correct” way to play chess? Or does it depend entirely on the subjective viewpoint of the chess players?
Which way is the correct way to play “chess” depends on which definition of the word chess you are using. In general, we resolve ambiguities like that by looking at the speaker’s intent. (The speaker does not have to be one of the players.)
Which way is the correct way to play “chess” depends on which definition of the word chess you are using. In general, we resolve ambiguities like that by looking at the speaker’s intent. (The speaker does not have to be one of the players.)
Yes, I know that. I’m asking rhetorical questions to Peter who is a moral realist.
Alright, this is your analogy, and instead of dancing around and arguing definitions can you explain, in precise terms, what you mean when you say chess?
I’ll take the bait: A place where the idea of chess had never been thought of couldn’t, by definition, contain a chess set. It could contain an artifact physically identical to one and which we could call one if we weren’t being precise, but it would have to have come from some origin besides humans intending to build a chess set. Thus would be perfectly reasonable for the two to speculate (and be right or wrong) about what (if any) use it was meant for by its actual builders (if any).
It could contain an artifact physically identical to one and which we could call one if we weren’t being precise, but it would have to have come from some origin besides humans intending to build a chess set.
Do you seriously mean to imply that something identical to chess set is not a chess set? The words “chess set” as I used them above are meant only to connect to a physical object, not intentions.
Thus would be perfectly reasonable for the two to speculate (and be right or wrong) about what (if any) use it was meant for by its actual builders (if any).
In practical terms I agree completely. My argument with Peter wasn’t actually about chess though, so it doesn’t make a ton of sense when you focus on particulars of the analogy, especially an analogy so flawed as this one.
Do you think we disagree on any issue of substance? If so, where?
I’m familiar with it anyway. The point is that things like history, prvenance and cultural
significance are built into the way we think about things, part of the connotational cloud. That doesn;t contradict QM, but it does schemes to lossllessly reduce meaning to physics.
To expound on JoshuaZ’s point, would chess have rules even if there were no minds?
Are the rules of chess objective and independent of anyone actually, y’know, knowing them?
ETA: Furthermore, if two agents in a place where chess has never existed come across a chess set, and they have a disagreement about what the rules might be, is one of them right and the other wrong?
The rules of chess would certainly exist, as much as any other mathematical object does. Of course, not every mind would care to follow them...
One could identify many different sets of rules for chess mathematically, but is one of them objectively the “correct” set of rules?
Or does selecting a set of rules from the possibilities always require the action of a subjective mind?
Edit: Also...
… that’s a whole other rabbit hole, no?
There’s exactly one function which is objectively the function which returns 1 for just those moves where a pawn moves one space, or two spaces on the first move, or the bishop moves diagonally, or the king moves one space, where none of the moves intersect other pieces without capturing, etc...
As I said, not every mind will care to evaluate this function.
As for whether mathematical objects exist… is this important? It really adds up to the same thing, either way.
(By the way, have you read the metaethics sequence?)
Yes, of course. I wasn’t arguing anything else. The person I was contending with is a moral realist, who would say that the function which represents those rules, the rules under which we play chess now, is the correct set of rules, and that this correctness is objective and independent of the minds of chess players.
This person would, I presume, argue that if suddenly every chess player in the world at the same time agreed to eliminate en passant from the game of chess, that they would then be playing the game “wrong”.
That is the position which I find nonsensical. I’m not arguing for anything bizarre here. I’m a Bayesian rationalist and a reductionist and yes I have read the sequences.
I explained the point I was making and that wasn’t it: The point was what obligation/compulsion means. It doesn’t mean it is physically impossible to do what is morally forbidden. It doesn’t mean it is an edict you will be punished for disobeying. It does mean that it is logically impossible to be moral (or rational or a chess player) after having significantly departed from the rules.
They would be playing a different game..chess 2.0 or chess++. Plainly, you can’t have one player using the revised rules and her opponent the old ones.
With your chess analogy, those moves that are forbidden are set by human minds and decisions. The game of chess itself is a product of human intelligence, and they can change the rules over time, and indeed they have.
Are you saying that morality works the same way? That what is morally forbidden are those things which most people find objectionable / assign negative value to?
Dude, you just said a minute ago that the word “chess” could be a family of different but related rulesets when I asked about castling, but now when it comes to changing en passant the game becomes something else entirely? I think you should respond to my question on that thread about a precise explanation of what you mean by “chess”, as I cannot figure out why some things count and others do not.
If you vary the way games work too much, you end with useless non-games (winning is undefinable, one player always wins...) If you vary the way rationality works too much, you end up with paradox, quodlibet etc. If you vary the rules of meta ethics too much, you end up with anyone being allowed to do anything, or nobody being allowed to do anything. “The rules are made up” doesn’t mean the rules are abitrary.
There is a family of chess-type games, and they are different games, because they are not intersubstitutable.
I find that perplexing. Perhaps you mean many sets of rules could be used to play games with chess boards and pieces. But they are not all chess. Chess is its rules. Same rules+differrent pieces=same game. Different rules+same pieces=different game.
This isn’t strictly speaking true. Note that there have many different games called chess. For example, pawns being able to move 2 squares on their first move, en passant, castling, and the queen being able to move as she can, are all recent innovations. But let’s put that aside and explore your analogy. If there’s one thing called “morality” then I fail to see how that isn’t but one game among many. You seem to be treating morality like chess (in that there’s an objective thing that is or is not chess) but are then bringing along for the particular game called “morality” all sorts of assumptions about whether or not people should play it or expect to play it. This seems akin to asserting that because there’s only one objective game called “chess” that entities “should” play it.
In Italy one can still find older chess players who use an alternative castling rule, from when castling was first being introduced, called “free castling” in which the rook can take any of the squares between itself and the king, or the king’s position, rather than the single permitted position (depending on the side) of the more common castling rules we play with today.
Is one of these versions the “correct” way to play chess? Or does it depend entirely on the subjective viewpoint of the chess players?
Which way is the correct way to play “chess” depends on which definition of the word chess you are using. In general, we resolve ambiguities like that by looking at the speaker’s intent. (The speaker does not have to be one of the players.)
Yes, I know that. I’m asking rhetorical questions to Peter who is a moral realist.
Chess might be a small and closely related family of rule-sets. That doesn’t affect anything.
Alright, this is your analogy, and instead of dancing around and arguing definitions can you explain, in precise terms, what you mean when you say chess?
I’ll take the bait: A place where the idea of chess had never been thought of couldn’t, by definition, contain a chess set. It could contain an artifact physically identical to one and which we could call one if we weren’t being precise, but it would have to have come from some origin besides humans intending to build a chess set. Thus would be perfectly reasonable for the two to speculate (and be right or wrong) about what (if any) use it was meant for by its actual builders (if any).
Do you seriously mean to imply that something identical to chess set is not a chess set? The words “chess set” as I used them above are meant only to connect to a physical object, not intentions.
In practical terms I agree completely. My argument with Peter wasn’t actually about chess though, so it doesn’t make a ton of sense when you focus on particulars of the analogy, especially an analogy so flawed as this one.
Do you think we disagree on any issue of substance? If so, where?
A duplicate of the Mona Lisa wouldn’t be the Mona Lisa.
Have you read the quantum physics sequence? Are you familiar with the experimental evidence on particle indistinguishability?
I’m familiar with it anyway. The point is that things like history, prvenance and cultural significance are built into the way we think about things, part of the connotational cloud. That doesn;t contradict QM, but it does schemes to lossllessly reduce meaning to physics.
Nothing I have to say about morality or metaethics hinges on that one way or the other.
Then clearly we have badly miscommunicated.