[alancalverd]

Do you have a proof that it's indeed impossible to solve?

Proof by induction:
The area of a circle with unit radius is an irrational number (π). The area of a square with unit side is a rational number (1). Whatever radius you choose for the circle (and the radius is its only defining dimension), you can't construct a square with exactly the same area because you can't know √π exactly.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Philosophers would be out of business if they posed solvable problems. Their business is to pretend that other people don't understand what they are doing, and that philosophical problems require indefinite debate.

Constructing a square with the same area as a circle is impossible. Proving it is impossible is everyday mathematics.

When someone solves one philosophical problem, there are still many other unsolved problems. Even when we solve all existing problems, they will create a new one.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I don't get that one( maybe too old or too stoopid! ), surely I can make a circle or square with any arbitrary area? Or is some condition missing in the original statement?

You can read this article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaring_the_circle
Squaring the circle is a problem in geometry first proposed in Greek mathematics. It is the challenge of constructing a square with the area of a circle by using only a finite number of steps with a compass and straightedge. The difficulty of the problem raised the question of whether specified axioms of Euclidean geometry concerning the existence of lines and circles implied the existence of such a square.

In 1882, the task was proven to be impossible, as a consequence of the Lindemann?Weierstrass theorem, which proves that pi (π) is a transcendental number. That is, π  is not the root of any polynomial with rational coefficients. It had been known for decades that the construction would be impossible if π were transcendental, but that fact was not proven until 1882. Approximate constructions with any given non-perfect accuracy exist, and many such constructions have been found.

Despite the proof that it is impossible, attempts to square the circle have been common in pseudomathematics (i.e. the work of mathematical cranks). The expression "squaring the circle" is sometimes used as a metaphor for trying to do the impossible.[1] The term quadrature of the circle is sometimes used as a synonym for squaring the circle, but it may also refer to approximate or numerical methods for finding the area of a circle.

[alancalverd]

When someone solves one philosophical problem, there are still many other unsolved problems.

None of which is of any interest or value to anyone, and most of which are not really problems at all.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

When someone solves one philosophical problem, there are still many other unsolved problems.

None of which is of any interest or value to anyone, and most of which are not really problems at all.

We can agree that some philosophical problems are not important. But I don't think that none of them are.
Some of things must be important to someone, that's why that word was inventedinvented in the first place. Determining what's important is one of philosophical problems.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Do you have a proof that it's indeed impossible to solve?

Proof by induction:
The area of a circle with unit radius is an irrational number (π). The area of a square with unit side is a rational number (1). Whatever radius you choose for the circle (and the radius is its only defining dimension), you can't construct a square with exactly the same area because you can't know √π exactly.

I meant philosophical problems.

This one below is the most basic philosophical problem in morality.

"Ought" is what you (or society in general) want, "is" is what you have.

There are no cosmic imperatives - even the "laws" of physics are observations, not prescriptions.

If we expect anyone to be convinced by our derivation of ought from is, we need to start with the most convincing case of "is". The cogito as the first knowledge is the most convincing information there is.

Let's start with a case where once upon a time, we're thinking about our own existence. This establishes the "is" case, which is there exist at least one conscious entity in the universe. The alternative for this case is : there's no conscious entity in the universe.
How can this fact be used to derive the ought version of the same case?

Since we can't change the past, the alternatives available for ought cases are:
1. Conscious entity ought to stay existing in the universe.
2. Conscious entity ought to stop existing in the universe.
3. There's no ought case. This word is meaningless.

From three logically possible "ought" cases, which one do you think is the most correct?

[alancalverd]

Ought implies that someone or something will benefit from the state or action. However you define a conscious entity it is part of the universe and a consequence of the physical laws that govern it. There is no evidence that its existence is of any benefit or otherwise to the universe.

As with all philosophy, your question is merely an instance of human vanity.

[alancalverd]

Some of things must be important to someone,

A host is important to its parasite. The art of human parasitism (politics, religion, philosophy) is to convince your host that what you do is important. Inventing questions and pretending that other people don't or can't understand them is the action of such a parasite.

I think we have now dealt with and dismissed what you considered to be the most important question in philosophy.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Ought implies that someone or something will benefit from the state or action. However you define a conscious entity it is part of the universe and a consequence of the physical laws that govern it. There is no evidence that its existence is of any benefit or otherwise to the universe.

Its existence can be said to benefit itself. It allows the pursuit of goals which would be impossible otherwise.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

As with all philosophy, your question is merely an instance of human vanity.

We can't say that humans are the only conscious entity in the universe. Especially after we know how vast the universe is, and how fast AI can grow smarter and wiser.

If you are really convinced that your life is meaningless, it's most likely that you are right.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I think we have now dealt with and dismissed what you considered to be the most important question in philosophy.

I'll take it that you've chosen the third option, which says that

3. There's no ought case. This word is meaningless.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Since we can't change the past, the alternatives available for ought cases are:
1. Conscious entity ought to stay existing in the universe.
2. Conscious entity ought to stop existing in the universe.
3. There's no ought case. This word is meaningless.

Due to entropy, natural selection, and the great filters, conscious entities who will exist in the future are most likely come from currently existing conscious entities who choose the first option. They will think that those who choose the second option as immoral, and those who choose the third option as wasting valuable resources, hence also are immoral.

[alancalverd]

Its existence can be said to benefit itself. It allows the pursuit of goals which would be impossible otherwise.

It sets goals which are of no importance to anything else - except possibly those entities it exploits in the pursuit of its goals.

[alancalverd]

We can't say that humans are the only conscious entity in the universe.

But in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we can say that any importance we attach to consciousness is only a reflection of our own vanity and selfimportance.

[alancalverd]

Due to entropy, natural selection, and the great filters, conscious entities who will exist in the future

Whatever your definition of consciousness, entropy will ensure that it ceases to exist. ΔS > 0, always.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Due to entropy, natural selection, and the great filters, conscious entities who will exist in the future

Whatever your definition of consciousness, entropy will ensure that it ceases to exist. ΔS > 0, always.

Do you believe it more than your own consciousness?

It's not very common to find physicists who are skeptical about the second law of thermodynamics, but here we are.

I don't believe the 2nd law of thermodynamics. (The most uplifting video I'll ever make.)

The second law of thermodynamics says that entropy will inevitably increase. Eventually, it will make life in the universe impossible. What does this mean? And is it correct? In this video, I sort out what we know about the arrow of time and why I don't believe that entropy will kill the universe.


00:00 Introduction
1:00 The Arrow of Time
3:04 Entropy, Work, and Heat
7:07 The Past Hypothesis and Heat Death
9:34 Entropy, Order, and Information
11:38 How Will the Universe End?
15:46 Brilliant Sponsorship

Do you have any goal at all?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Its existence can be said to benefit itself. It allows the pursuit of goals which would be impossible otherwise.

It sets goals which are of no importance to anything else - except possibly those entities it exploits in the pursuit of its goals.

Each of us are the backup plans of our parents, which are themselves backup plans of their parents, and so on to our ancestors. We are here because their goals are somewhat aligned with the universal terminal goal.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

We can't say that humans are the only conscious entity in the universe.

But in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we can say that any importance we attach to consciousness is only a reflection of our own vanity and selfimportance.

Read again about Bayesian reasoning. Any evidence can only increase our confidence so much until it passes the threshold of practicality. It can never turn into certainty.
Our existence is a scaffolding to enable the existence of future conscious entities. Otherwise, we're the immorals who are wasting precious resources.

[alancalverd]

Our existence is a scaffolding to enable the existence of future conscious entities. Otherwise, we're the immorals who are wasting precious resources.

Vanity yet again!

"Scaffolding" presumes an external motivator. It doesn't erect itself with a purpose, but is put in place by someone with an intention to clad it with something else. There is no evidence of that someone or intention. It is indeed true that the land rises on the skeletons of its previous inhabitants, but they weren't created for that reason, nor did they intend to die for it. 

"Wasting resources" is a value judgement with no logical evidence. Every living thing consumes part of its environment and excretes toxins. You might as well accuse trees of "wasting" carbon dioxide and poisoning the environment with oxygen - which is exactly what happened before animals evolved to complete the cycle. The inescapable fact is that ΔS > 0 everywhere, always, and living things are just a more complicated chemical pathway to that result than simple fusion or oxidation.   

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

"Scaffolding" presumes an external motivator. It doesn't erect itself with a purpose, but is put in place by someone with an intention to clad it with something else. There is no evidence of that someone or intention. It is indeed true that the land rises on the skeletons of its previous inhabitants, but they weren't created for that reason, nor did they intend to die for it.

Imagine if our ancestors didn't care if their descendants would live or die. We won't be here to talk about it. They were the scaffolding to our current existence. And we are the scaffolding to future conscious entities. They don't have to have the same physical and chemical structures as we do, just like we don't have to have the same physical and chemical structures as our ancestors do.

If you don't mind about it, that's fine. But I think many others do mind about it. And what matters is the opinion of those who are conscious.