You lost me on this one. I'm not so sure about even the very restricted elements of certainty you end up with here.
What if, for example, a version of the Hindu notion of "maya" is the nature of reality? It COULD be that all of what we can perceive and measure in this "reality" is illusion, and that all the time we spend analyzing it, and all the "gain" we experience by accumulating knowledge about it is actually "loss," as it distracts us further and further from the "true reality," which can only be accessed or known by the paradoxical step of stepping out of all "knowledge" and illusion. There are variations of this possibility in which even spending time gambling on the race is actually a loss rather than a gain, or at least completely irrelevant.
Or, what if the "we" who are (individually or collectively) betting on these horses are by our very existence a net loss in the larger web of life and reality? (A virus, perhaps, as Agent Smith refers to humans in The Matrix). It's possible that even if continuing to learn and collect knowledge is good for "me" as an individual, or good for "us" as a tribe/country/species, that it only seems that way to us, from our selfish (anthropomorphic) point of view. It could be that we live in a universe that would actually be better off without us continuing down this path of maximizing knowledge/ourselves.
I agree that all the examples you mention are possibilities, but wouldn't it be premature to act on them until there is more certainty as to what the nature of reality is, given that opposing scenarios are also possible? Wouldn't the only reasonable path forward be to seek the knowledge necessary to understand the truth and then act accordingly, even if that happens to mean revising or abandoning our previous conclusions?
Thank you both for your interesting and constructive thoughts on this, Zemo and Eliezer! (I meant to reply sooner, but I got distracted writing a whole new short article to explore the points you both raised. Stay tuned.)
Brilliant. So many gems are discarded because one aspect is refuted. Loved your exploration of the enduring utility of Pascal’s wager.
You lost me on this one. I'm not so sure about even the very restricted elements of certainty you end up with here.
What if, for example, a version of the Hindu notion of "maya" is the nature of reality? It COULD be that all of what we can perceive and measure in this "reality" is illusion, and that all the time we spend analyzing it, and all the "gain" we experience by accumulating knowledge about it is actually "loss," as it distracts us further and further from the "true reality," which can only be accessed or known by the paradoxical step of stepping out of all "knowledge" and illusion. There are variations of this possibility in which even spending time gambling on the race is actually a loss rather than a gain, or at least completely irrelevant.
Or, what if the "we" who are (individually or collectively) betting on these horses are by our very existence a net loss in the larger web of life and reality? (A virus, perhaps, as Agent Smith refers to humans in The Matrix). It's possible that even if continuing to learn and collect knowledge is good for "me" as an individual, or good for "us" as a tribe/country/species, that it only seems that way to us, from our selfish (anthropomorphic) point of view. It could be that we live in a universe that would actually be better off without us continuing down this path of maximizing knowledge/ourselves.
Dark, I know, but possible.
I agree that all the examples you mention are possibilities, but wouldn't it be premature to act on them until there is more certainty as to what the nature of reality is, given that opposing scenarios are also possible? Wouldn't the only reasonable path forward be to seek the knowledge necessary to understand the truth and then act accordingly, even if that happens to mean revising or abandoning our previous conclusions?
Yes. What he said! :)
Thank you both for your interesting and constructive thoughts on this, Zemo and Eliezer! (I meant to reply sooner, but I got distracted writing a whole new short article to explore the points you both raised. Stay tuned.)