cousin_it and Vladimir_Nesov’s replies are good answers; at the risk of being redundant, I’ll take this point by point.
to some alien species we might encounter or AI we might build, our values would be as meaningless as the values of insects are to us.
The above is factually correct.
humanity’s values have no cosmic significance or absolute validity in our vast cosmos
The phrases “cosmic significance” and “absolute validity” are confused notions. They don’t actually refer to anything in the world. For more on this kind of thing you will want to read the Reductionism Sequence.
all our creations and efforts are ultimately futile in a universe of increasing entropy and astrophysical annihilation
Our efforts would be “ultimately futile” if we were doomed to never achieve our goals, to never satisfy any of our values. If the only things we valued were things like “living for an infinite amount of time”, then yes, the heat death of the universe would make all our efforts futile. But if we value things that only require finite resources, like “getting a good night’s sleep tonight”, then no, our efforts are not a priori futile.
Only egotism exists.
Egotism is an idea, not a thing, so it’s meaningless to say that it exists or doesn’t exist. You could say “Only egoists exist”, but that would be false. You could also say “In the limit of perfect information and perfect rationality, all humans would be egoists”, and I believe that’s also false. Certainly nothing you’ve said implies that it’s true.
The Metaethics Sequence directly addresses and dissolves the idea that everything seems to be meaningless because there is no objective, universally compelling morality. But the Reductionism Sequence should be read first.
Wow fantastic thank you for this excellent reply. Just out of curiosity, is there any question this “cult of rationality” doesn’t have a “sequence” or a ready answer for? ;)
The sequences are designed to dissolve common confusions. By dint of those confusions being common, almost everybody falls into them at one time or another, so it should not be surprising that the sequences come up often in response to new questions.
Why do you all agree on so much? Am I joining a cult?
We have a general community policy of not pretending to be open-minded on long-settled issues for the sake of not offending people. If we spent our time debating the basics, we would never get to the advanced stuff at all. Yes, some of the results that fall out of these basics sound weird if you haven’t seen the reasoning behind them, but there’s nothing in the laws of physics that prevents reality from sounding weird.
cousin_it and Vladimir_Nesov’s replies are good answers; at the risk of being redundant, I’ll take this point by point.
The above is factually correct.
The phrases “cosmic significance” and “absolute validity” are confused notions. They don’t actually refer to anything in the world. For more on this kind of thing you will want to read the Reductionism Sequence.
Our efforts would be “ultimately futile” if we were doomed to never achieve our goals, to never satisfy any of our values. If the only things we valued were things like “living for an infinite amount of time”, then yes, the heat death of the universe would make all our efforts futile. But if we value things that only require finite resources, like “getting a good night’s sleep tonight”, then no, our efforts are not a priori futile.
Egotism is an idea, not a thing, so it’s meaningless to say that it exists or doesn’t exist. You could say “Only egoists exist”, but that would be false. You could also say “In the limit of perfect information and perfect rationality, all humans would be egoists”, and I believe that’s also false. Certainly nothing you’ve said implies that it’s true.
The Metaethics Sequence directly addresses and dissolves the idea that everything seems to be meaningless because there is no objective, universally compelling morality. But the Reductionism Sequence should be read first.
Very well expressed. Especially since it links to the specific sequence that deals with this instead of generally advising to “read the sequences”.
Wow fantastic thank you for this excellent reply. Just out of curiosity, is there any question this “cult of rationality” doesn’t have a “sequence” or a ready answer for? ;)
The sequences are designed to dissolve common confusions. By dint of those confusions being common, almost everybody falls into them at one time or another, so it should not be surprising that the sequences come up often in response to new questions.
You’re welcome. The FAQ says:
“[R]eality has a well-known [weird] bias.”