this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
34 points (100.0% liked)

AskBeehaw

2002 readers
2 users here now

An open-ended community for asking and answering various questions! Permissive of asks, AMAs, and OOTLs (out-of-the-loop) alike.

In the absence of flairs, questions requesting more thought-out answers can be marked by putting [SERIOUS] in the title.


Subcommunity of Chat


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

critical minds want to know the answer to this question

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] polonius-rex@kbin.run 11 points 3 months ago (3 children)

but you could birth a new person who didn't fit that finite number

there will always be a hypothetical new person who could exist

[–] match@pawb.social 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

me, pedantically giving birth to a new child in order to prove the n+1 case

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 3 points 3 months ago

Countries have been trying gamification and incentivization to increase birth rates, when they should have been appealing to our pedantic impulses all along.

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

There are finite number of possible humans due to there being a finite number of states a brain can be in.

There is an argument for moral realism that takes advantage of finiteness and computability of mental processes to show that there could be an objective morality

@askbeehaw

[–] polonius-rex@kbin.run 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

a finite number of states a brain can be in

there are infinite ways to arrange and configure finite neurons

computability of mental processes

are mental processes entirely computable though? you kind of run into a halting-problem-style issue because if you can compute your response to anything that should imply that you can never make a decision that surprises the computation. but if you feed knowledge of the computation's result into your decision making process you can just pick the opposite

[–] Zadig@beehaw.org 4 points 3 months ago

there are infinite ways to arrange and configure finite neurons

hm? i don't see how this is true at all. a finite of anything in a finite space can only have finite configurations.

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The universe might be discrete.

If mental states are finite, then the space of all possible human minds is finite and includes the one that believes they have knowledge of the computation's result. It is possible for mental states of 2 minds to be different but extensionally behave like the same person. We would exclude human minds whose models don't map well onto the physics of our universe though. You might not be willing to pick the opposite if we are talking about morality also @askbeehaw

[–] match@pawb.social 1 points 3 months ago

It's possible that brains act stochastically such that two discrete identical brains produce a range of outputs under identical conditions. In that case, mental states would be confined by the space of outputs of minds, and if that's the real numbers then it would be uncountably many.

[–] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There are a finite amount of resources in the universe to make more humans.

[–] polonius-rex@kbin.run 3 points 3 months ago

but an infinite number of ways you could spend those resources