I hate you because I care

Some time ago I wrote about how I thought that a logical consequence of understanding of evolution and the principle of equality was to murder everything that you could possibly murder. I was being facetious, but it made running over bunnies more acceptable because it meant that the bunnies with the tendency toward restlessness would not have children and thus future generations of bunnies would not be run over.

To clarify a previous post: the way I think about it, some bunnies are more inclined to react to loud noises and bright lights than others. If not, then some are more likely to learn from previous experiences than others. Thus, it seems to me that if you run over enough of them, after a few generations, only the ones with the natural or learned tendency to stay away from roads would survive to reproduce.

I just wish there were some form of meta-humans that would run over all the stupid people (half of my friends would go in the first batch). This might sound callous, but I believe I can derive philanthropy from misanthropy.

If you assume that stupidity is a natural tendency that can lead to the worst set of circumstances for humans, then it follows that weeding out the stupid is morally desirable in that future generations would have less inclination to do stupid things that would hurt them as a whole.

In other words, ’stupid is as stupid does.’ But if stupid is no more, then at least some stupid things would not be done anymore. And I can fix stupid with a shotgun.

| No Comments

I want some GRold

Steve at Go Grue! has a wonderful reimagining of Newcomb’s paradox as a betting game.

Steve is arguing my position fairly well, so I won’t comment, but I’m starting to think the error is in what a rational expectation is vs. a rational decision. With enough manipulation, I can make Newcomb’s paradox end up in a Nash equilibrium where everyone chooses Game A, or I can turn it into Kavka’s toxin puzzle.

In any case, I stand by my claim that the Newcomb Paradox is the greatest paradox because there is no bad outcome, but lots of good outcomes. Thus, I’ve decided to ‘Newcombize’ all of greatest paradoxes in history. *ahem!*

The Sorites Paradox

How many Sacagawea dollar coins must be added to a pile before they can be called a heap?

Zeno’s Paradox

In counting a fortune, first you must count half-way there and before that you must count half of that and so on ad infinitum. Thus, since you have a finite amount of time alive, you will never finish.

Hempel’s Ravens

P: All coins are metal. Therefore, finding non-metal, non-coin objects helps confirm thesis P.

Ship of Theseus

Pixel’s fortune consists of one million individual dollar bills. As each dollar bill grows tattered, he replaces it with a new dollar bill. Finally, every bill is replaced. Can it still be considered the same fortune?

Buridan’s Ass

An ass has to choose between two identical piles of golden hay. They are both equidistant and he has no preference. How is making any particular choice rational?

Schrödinger’s Cat

A fortune is hidden under a box. Inside the box is a paint can that will explode if a certain particle releases a neutron. The particle has a 50 percent chance of releasing that neutron at the end of the hour. Before the box is opened, is the fortune both tainted and untainted?

Ontological paradox

A time-traveler gives himself a fortune in the past. Where did the money come from if— in the future— the time-traveler became rich because of that exact fortune?

Moore’s Paradox

I’m rich, but I don’t believe I am.

Liar Paradox

“This sentence is false,” says the millionaire liar.
(okay, so this one was pushing it, but still!)

Goodman’s Paradox

GRold: A mineral that is Gold (Au) if observed before midnight tonight and Silver (Ag) if unobserved before midnight tonight. I have a bag full of GRold, and I have been pulling out pieces of GRold all night. Just past midnight, I pull out another mineral from this bag, should I expect it to be Gold or Silver?

| No Comments