Suggested summary: “There is nothing else.” That is the key sentence. After much discussion of morals and metas, it comes down to: “You go on with the same morals as before, and the same moral arguments as before.” The insight offered is that there is no deeper insight to offer. The recursion will bottom out, so bite the bullet and move on.
Yet another agreement on the 1-Place and 2-Place problem, and I read it after the addition. CEV goes around most of that for neurologically intact humans, but the principle of “no universally compelling arguments” means that we still have right-Eliezer and right-Robin, even if those return the same values to 42 decimal places. If we shut up and multiply sufficiently large values, that 43rd decimal place is a lot of specks and torture.
(Lots of English usage sounds wrong. You know enough Japanese to know how wrong “I bow to Zubon” sounds. But maybe you can kick off some re-definition of terms. A century of precedent isn’t much in philosophy.)
Suggested summary: “There is nothing else.” That is the key sentence. After much discussion of morals and metas, it comes down to: “You go on with the same morals as before, and the same moral arguments as before.” The insight offered is that there is no deeper insight to offer. The recursion will bottom out, so bite the bullet and move on.
Yet another agreement on the 1-Place and 2-Place problem, and I read it after the addition. CEV goes around most of that for neurologically intact humans, but the principle of “no universally compelling arguments” means that we still have right-Eliezer and right-Robin, even if those return the same values to 42 decimal places. If we shut up and multiply sufficiently large values, that 43rd decimal place is a lot of specks and torture.
(Lots of English usage sounds wrong. You know enough Japanese to know how wrong “I bow to Zubon” sounds. But maybe you can kick off some re-definition of terms. A century of precedent isn’t much in philosophy.)