Monthly Archives: February 2017

Other Opinions #40 – What Made America Great, and Should We Keep Doing That?

http://howardtayler.com/2017/02/what-made-america-great-and-should-we-keep-doing-that/

Disclaimer: I don’t necessarily agree with or endorse everything that I link to. I link to things that are interesting and/or thought-provoking. Caveat lector.

Advertisements

Should Robots Pay Taxes?

I was going to use this as an “other opinions” link but then I started thinking about it and decided to turn it into a proper post instead (my sequence on atheism will resume next Wednesday as usual). Here’s the initial interview: https://qz.com/911968/bill-gates-the-robot-that-takes-your-job-should-pay-taxes/.

It’s an interesting proposal, but it has some weird flaws. For example, how do you define a robot vs. just a tool? Should we be taxing hammers because they let carpenters drive in nails more efficiently, therefore displacing other carpentry jobs? What about one of those fancy smart electric (but still manually controlled) saws? They still seem more like tools, but the line is getting blurry. When you add a CNC module to that saw, does it become a robot for tax purposes? Why? The marginal efficiency of the CNC module itself isn’t necessarily that high.

Another issue is that robots are already getting taxed, albeit indirectly. When a company automates away a job, they do so to save money. That money ends up going somewhere (usually the pockets of executives and shareholders) and tax is payed on it there, usually at fairly high marginal rates. You can argue various counter-points about how much tax those people should fairly pay, but at that point we’ve kind of lost the thread of the argument. It’s not at all obvious that “tax robots” is the right solution to the problem of “rich people are good at tax evasion”, and that wasn’t the original claim anyway.

Of course, if you combine the definitional problems with the tax evasion point then you run into another issue: any reasonable formulation of this tax is going to be trivial to circumvent. You’re going to end up with a single minimum-wage worker pressing a green button once an hour just so the machine at the other end doesn’t meet the definition of a “robot”. I mean sure, your tax has saved a job, so in some sense it’s had the intended effect, but not at the intended scale nor in any way that provides actual quality of life to the person in question.

It’s a neat idea, and it makes for some good headlines, but to me a robot tax just ends up seeming silly.

An Atheist’s Flowchart, Part 3: Proof of God and Russel’s Teapot

In the first part of this series we covered the difference between axiomatic and derived beliefs and Occam’s razor. In the second part I made an argument that belief in any sort of traditional god cannot be axiomatic. In this post I will make the argument that belief in god cannot be derived either; the conclusion, following from both points, is that one cannot and should not believe in god. This will complete my first angle of atheist approach, the one I called epistemic.

In order for a belief in god to be derived, it must be naturally supported by some other beliefs which may themselves be derived or axiomatic. Either way, if you follow the chain of beliefs-supporting-beliefs back far enough you must end at an axiomatic belief at some point. Let us then consider the ways we might go about proving the existence of god.

Empiricism

The first and most obvious way to prove the existence of god is via empiricism: if there were observable, empirical evidence whose only reasonable explanation was the existence of god, then that would be sufficient. However, there is none. God does not regularly perform otherwise-inexplicable miracles on live television; there is no scientific experiment which suggests that god exists; no claims to see god, or hear his voice, or sense his presence, have ever been substantiated.

As an empiricist I must be consistent: if such evidence were ever to appear then I would happily change my mind on this whole point and consider myself to be mistaken. Until that point, the absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence of absence.

Russel’s Teapot

I’m now going to take a brief sidebar to elaborate on that last point since the burden of proof in this situation seems to be a common source of confusion. Succinctly put, the burden of proof in this case does in fact fall on the person making the argument for the existence of god (i.e. not on me). This can be seen most easily via a common analogy known as Russel’s Teapot. More formally, claiming that something is true because it has not been proven false is a fallacy: the argument from ignorance.

Of course, the opposite is also a fallacy: I cannot claim something is false simply because it has not yet been proven true. However this does not prevent absence of evidence from being evidence of absence in all cases. Per Irving Copi:

In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.

Logic

The other common approaches to prove the existence of god are via logic, the most popular of which are the many different ontological arguments. It would be counter-productive to try and enumerate and disprove all the various formulations of these arguments; suffice it to say that all of the more popular ones have been specifically debunked by philosophers and logicians at some point already. But more importantly, all of these arguments start with additional axioms beyond the core set. Even the full set of nine in which I believe do not provide for any of them.

As with the empiric approach, I must be consistent: if a logical argument were presented to me for the existence of god, whose only axioms were the nine in which I believe, then I would change my mind. But I do not believe that is likely to happen.

In fact, if you take a broad enough view, these two points are equivalent: since empiricism is effectively built into my axioms, my rejections of both the empirical and logical attempts to prove god are the same: none of the arguments presented are sufficiently supported based on my axioms.

An Atheist’s Flowchart, Part 2: The Unspoken Axioms

In previous posts we have worked our way two layers down into the “flowchart” I have for this argument: we are dealing with my argument via epistemology, and within that argument we are dealing with the idea of god as an axiomatic belief. Today hopefully we will finish that piece, and next week we will take a look at the idea of god as a derived belief. Last week I sketched out the shape of this post, so I’m just going to run down the list of claims and flesh each one out as I go.

The Core Axioms

First, there is a core set of axiomatic beliefs which everybody accepts, and which everybody must accept to participate meaningfully in the world (and therefore in this debate). These are effectively axioms 3, 5, 6, and 7 from my original eight:

  • the existence of reality
  • the existence of causality
  • the reliability of one’s senses
  • the reliability of one’s mind/memory

Without these core beliefs it is functionally impossible to accomplish anything at all. Simply participating in a conversation requires implicit acceptance of all of these things.

The other axioms in my original eight (numbers 1, 2, 4, and 9) are philosophically important for me to able to make this argument (it would be impossible without a belief in formal logic, for example), but I don’t consider them fundamental in the same sense. It is theoretically possible to live your life in a quasi-coherent fashion while rejecting logic in all forms, although you wouldn’t necessarily get very far.

Their Power and Sufficiency

Surprisingly for their simplicity, these core axioms are extremely powerful all on their own, and support a broad set of derived beliefs. For example, you need nothing else in order to build the scientific method and a general set of empirical beliefs (logic and mathematics often helps in formulating precise hypotheses, but are not strictly required).

I will go one step further however, and make a stronger claim: these four axioms are almost or completely sufficient, on their own, to form a coherent worldview. They produce science, and science is capable of describing and explaining an enormous number of things about the world around us, from bed bugs to light bulbs to thunderstorms.

The Complexity of God

I’m going to take a very brief sidebar now to talk about the complexity of God as an axiom. If you’re hip with information theory you can read this considerably more formal explanation from Less Wrong using Solomonoff Induction and Turing Machines. It uses the phrase “a witch did it”, but just substitute in “god did it” and the whole thing still works.

For the rest of us, here’s the straight-forward version: the existence of god is massively complex. Just consider how much it adds to any worldview based on the core axioms. It adds:

  • the existence of something real that is not observable via our otherwise reliable senses
  • the ability for this extra thing to breach the normal contract of cause and effect
  • the existence of a non-physical mind
  • something with the power to create, destroy, or change the observable universe

Not only does this add a lot of pieces to any worldview, it provides very little explanatory power. As empirical science has now explained or debunked any claims of literal miracles, it is generally claimed that god explains human morality, the religious impulse, and… I think that’s it. When you compare the cost (the complexity of what you accept) to the benefit (the things it actually provides and explains), god is a terrible deal.

Putting It All Together

We now have all the pieces and we can put together the argument. The first half is simple: if the core axioms are in fact entirely sufficient on their own, then by Occam’s razor we cannot and should not take any further axioms, including the existence of god. However, if one believes that the core axioms are insufficient (for example, one believes in it is necessary to have an axiomatic source of moral truth) then one might still be tempted to use god in this way.

Occam’s razor also slices away this second tack because god is so ridiculously complex as an explanation. For any problem you propose, the answer “god did it” or “god is the reason” is an objectively worse explanation than any number of choices I can come up with on a moment’s notice (to continue the moral truth example, “human life is intrinsically valuable” is a far simpler axiom that a lot of humanists take and is otherwise just as good). Any way you slice it, god is overly complex and unnecessary as an axiomatic belief.

Therefore you cannot take the existence of god as an axiomatic belief.

Other Opinions #37 – Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People

http://idlewords.com/talks/superintelligence.htm

Disclaimer: I don’t necessarily agree with or endorse everything that I link to. I link to things that are interesting and/or thought-provoking. Caveat lector.

Although, this one shares a lot with my previous post on Less Wrong.