I believe that entropy is the fundamental Law of everything, This "everything" can exist only if a resistance forces are active and more powerful than the forces of degradation. Those forces weakened due to many different processes. The result is well formulated at the end of your article: "The end is nigh for actuarial philosophy. Its scoreboard is broken, its currency debased. Optimization is out; inefficiency is in."
If by “entropy” you mean the idea that everything degrades, I’d agree and disagree. Sure, everything degrades, but into what? Things don’t just keep on degrading forever. Eventually they transform.
I wouldn't call it fundamental law, Entropy is The Sacrifice, the Holy Game is possible only between the Fullness and the Fullness thanks to the Sacrifice but we risk big blasfemies here..
Surely, by it's own lights, problem nihilism solves zero many problems. In order to solve them, they must have been problems— a precondition denied by the nihilist. So the solution:bullets ratio for nihilism is 0:n. That's bad even if I like the taste of nihilism so much that I find all the so-called bullets to be candy.
Sure but it's unbeatable by the lights of the dominant Lewisian approach, according to which the view with the best "problems solved" to "bullets bitten" ratio wins. You're right that, by its own lights, it solves no problems because there aren't any problems to be solved. But the dominant methodology doesn't demand that the winning view acknowledges that there are problems.
Far from being the highest-scoring view, Problem Nihilism is the worst-scoring. To accept it is to bite the biggest bullet of all, namely that appearances of inconsistency that all thinking people uncover are illusory: that there is no impetus to philosophy at all.
I believe that entropy is the fundamental Law of everything, This "everything" can exist only if a resistance forces are active and more powerful than the forces of degradation. Those forces weakened due to many different processes. The result is well formulated at the end of your article: "The end is nigh for actuarial philosophy. Its scoreboard is broken, its currency debased. Optimization is out; inefficiency is in."
If by “entropy” you mean the idea that everything degrades, I’d agree and disagree. Sure, everything degrades, but into what? Things don’t just keep on degrading forever. Eventually they transform.
Entropy probably goes to the Black Holy Hole.. after that nobody knows but that's not a problem
I wouldn't call it fundamental law, Entropy is The Sacrifice, the Holy Game is possible only between the Fullness and the Fullness thanks to the Sacrifice but we risk big blasfemies here..
Surely, by it's own lights, problem nihilism solves zero many problems. In order to solve them, they must have been problems— a precondition denied by the nihilist. So the solution:bullets ratio for nihilism is 0:n. That's bad even if I like the taste of nihilism so much that I find all the so-called bullets to be candy.
Sure but it's unbeatable by the lights of the dominant Lewisian approach, according to which the view with the best "problems solved" to "bullets bitten" ratio wins. You're right that, by its own lights, it solves no problems because there aren't any problems to be solved. But the dominant methodology doesn't demand that the winning view acknowledges that there are problems.
Far from being the highest-scoring view, Problem Nihilism is the worst-scoring. To accept it is to bite the biggest bullet of all, namely that appearances of inconsistency that all thinking people uncover are illusory: that there is no impetus to philosophy at all.
But how can you call it a bullet to bite without begging the question?
Shh! We could become "problem realists" on the surface but "problem nihilists" underground reading this! )
Very nice, thank you.
I think that without theology, there is no way to imagine the destructive process leading to the ORIGINAL state of reversed integration.
This whole article can be summarized by the 2-nd Law of thermodynamic as it applied to the socium/society.
Care to elaborate?