Reality: you literally can derive what ought to be (what is probable) from the out-of-equilibrium thermodynamical equations, and it simply depends on the free energy dissipated by the trajectory of the system over time.

While I am purposefully misconstruing the two definitions here, there is an argument to be made by this very principle that the post-selection effect on culture yields a convergence of the two

How do you define what is "ought"? Based on a system of values. How do you determine your values? Based on cultural priors. How do those cultural priors get distilled from experience? Through a memetic adaptive process where there is a selective pressure on the space of cultures.

Ultimately, the value systems that survive will be the ones that are aligned towards growth of its ideological hosts, i.e. according to memetic fitness.

Memetic fitness is a byproduct of thermodynamic dissipative adaptation, similar to genetic evolution.

[–] sinedpick@awful.systems 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Solving the is-ought problem is super easy when you change what "ought" means.

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

P=NP if N=1

[–] self@awful.systems 1 points 9 months ago

from the same CS minds who brought you “the solution to the halting problem is trivial, just ask the computer if it halted. hyperturing!”

[–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 2 points 9 months ago

I dislike how often people pull this trick. 'here are 5 definitions of this thing, we are going to pick one, prove something for it, and claim it also holds for all the other definitions, and never tell people we are working with a non-standard thing'. I get that the goal is to make the non-standard definition the standard, it is activism masking as logic, but eurgh.

load more comments (5 replies)