[extropy-chat] A crushing defense of objective ethics. Universal Volition and 'Ought' from 'is'.

[Giu1i0 Pri5c0]

I would wish to live in a universe which terminates in an omega point,
and can see how you could perhaps derive correct moral behaviours
assuming an omega point scenario.
But unfortunately wishing something does not make it actual, and as
Eugen says available scientific evidence points against Tipler.
Of course this may change with new experiments and observations.
But this is precisely one of the points that I am trying to make.
Morality is *IMPORTANT* to us human beings, so we should really base
it on something solid that is not invalidated when experiment shows
that the mass of the hchsgahcgion is 5% higher that previous
estimates.
So, I join moral relativists in trying to base morality on social
consensus achieved through a painful and erratic trial and error
process. This does not have the pristine simplicity and beauty of
2=2=4, but is the best we can do.


On 5/6/05, Marc Geddes <marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> Not true!  For instance Frank Tipler's Omega Point
> theory had the ultimate fate of the universe being
> physically indeterminate, but it was still the case
> that sentients could predict the effects of their
> actions on the universe.  Tipler showed how sentients
> could co-ordinate their actions to increase the
> probability of the continued existence of the universe
> (in the sense of maintaining the possibility of an
> infinite number of computations prior to the end of
> 'real time').