Vladimir, you haven’t been reading this blog for long, have you?
Eliezer, I’ve lurked here for about a year. The quantum sequence was great (turned me on to many-worlds), but already pretty religious, e.g. the rationale or “it came time to break your allegiance to Science”. I ate the tasty intellectual parts and mentally discarded the nasty religious parts. (For example, attacking science by attacking the Copenhagen interpretation was pretty low—most physicists don’t even consider interpretations science.) Your recent posts however are all nasty, no tasty. Talmudic.
Thanks for reminding about “Is Humanism A Religion-Substitute?”, it’s a perfect example of what I’m talking about. You seem to be instinctively religious—you want to worship something, while e.g. for me it’s just distasteful.
Religions don’t go bad because they are false and stupid. Religions go bad because they live on the “ought” side of is/ought, where there is no true and false. (Cue your morality sequence.)
Eliezer, I’ve lurked here for about a year. The quantum sequence was great (turned me on to many-worlds), but already pretty religious, e.g. the rationale or “it came time to break your allegiance to Science”. I ate the tasty intellectual parts and mentally discarded the nasty religious parts. (For example, attacking science by attacking the Copenhagen interpretation was pretty low—most physicists don’t even consider interpretations science.) Your recent posts however are all nasty, no tasty. Talmudic.
Thanks for reminding about “Is Humanism A Religion-Substitute?”, it’s a perfect example of what I’m talking about. You seem to be instinctively religious—you want to worship something, while e.g. for me it’s just distasteful.
Religions don’t go bad because they are false and stupid. Religions go bad because they live on the “ought” side of is/ought, where there is no true and false. (Cue your morality sequence.)