“All else being equal people can do what they want to, particularly regarding the disposition of their own person, so long as it does not interfere with other people”.
Note that you’re not actually giving a low-complexity ‘first principle’ from which to derive stuff, but merely hiding complexity away into the word “interfere”—‘normal’ humans (who already know what you’re saying on some level) will understand (except possibly in borderline cases), but try explaining to an alien or an AI what exactly counts as “interference” and what doesn’t.
Note that you’re just hiding complexity away into the word “interfere”
Just? If you think that my statement doesn’t do anything more than hide complexity then you are mistaken in a sense very similar to this. I was referring to a human concept that a reasonable human could be expected to at least approximately understand. That’s why we have words.
-- try explaining to an alien or an AI what exactly counts as “interference” and what doesn’t.
Many things are hard to explain in full reduced detail. Sometimes it appropriate to attempt such an explanation. Sometimes it is better to just say “It’s a tiger”.
I didn’t clearly express what I was thinking. Edited—is it better now?
The same reply applies. You have given a much more detailed explanation of a principle that does not fit the context. Lack of clarity was never a problem.
Note that you’re not actually giving a low-complexity ‘first principle’ from which to derive stuff, but merely hiding complexity away into the word “interfere”—‘normal’ humans (who already know what you’re saying on some level) will understand (except possibly in borderline cases), but try explaining to an alien or an AI what exactly counts as “interference” and what doesn’t.
Just? If you think that my statement doesn’t do anything more than hide complexity then you are mistaken in a sense very similar to this. I was referring to a human concept that a reasonable human could be expected to at least approximately understand. That’s why we have words.
Many things are hard to explain in full reduced detail. Sometimes it appropriate to attempt such an explanation. Sometimes it is better to just say “It’s a tiger”.
I didn’t clearly express what I was thinking. Edited—is it better now?
The same reply applies. You have given a much more detailed explanation of a principle that does not fit the context. Lack of clarity was never a problem.