LessWrong AI
2026-09-19 02:28 UTC
By bruberu
USR-0152-20260919-community-fo-deaa7619
Koopman Theory and Metaethics
tl;dr: The constructivist view of natural selection as the main source of our moral views can be expressed in a surprisingly tractable mathematical form. Measurements of the universe can be rolled forwards in time using the linear Koopman operator, and so most of its late-stage behavior is described by Koopman eigenfunctions with eigenvalue near 1. Life would then be selected for moral systems that constrain behavior within one of those slow modes. As we humans are likely influenced by this constraint, it might not be horrible to use spectral analysis as part of our moral reasoning. tl;dr tl;dr: Local Teenager Tries To Solve Ethics With Funny-Looking K You and Your Values It’s remarkable that our decisions even somewhat align with any coherent moral philosophy so far put forth. Neuroscience has hardly begun to peer into the human brain, and evolutionary psychology seems far from settled enough to give strong predictions. Approval reward mediates most of our agreement with each other in communities, sure. But it doesn’t explain the "moral arc of history," or agreement between disconnected human groups. So, what gives? Where and why do we agree with each other? "Moral Arc of History" In everyday situations, you seem to act as if you had coherent preferences. Your behavior reasonably controls your hunger, blood CO2 concentration, bladder pressure, and so on. While there is significantly more disagreement in terms of cultural questions, at least some historic issues seem to have…
tl;dr: The constructivist view of natural selection as the main source of our moral views can be expressed in a surprisingly tractable mathematical form. Measurements of the universe can be rolled forwards in time using the linear Koopman operator, and so most of its late-stage behavior is described by Koopman eigenfunctions with eigenvalue near 1. Life would then be selected for moral systems that constrain behavior within one of those slow modes. As we humans are likely influenced by this constraint, it might not be horrible to use spectral analysis as part of our moral reasoning. tl;dr tl;dr: Local Teenager Tries To Solve Ethics With Funny-Looking K You and Your Values It’s remarkable that our decisions even somewhat align with any coherent moral philosophy so far put forth. Neuroscience has hardly begun to peer into the human brain, and evolutionary psychology seems far from settled enough to give strong predictions. Approval reward mediates most of our agreement with each other in communities, sure. But it doesn’t explain the "moral arc of history," or agreement between disconnected human groups. So, what gives? Where and why do we agree with each other? "Moral Arc of History" In everyday situations, you seem to act as if you had coherent preferences. Your behavior reasonably controls your hunger, blood CO2 concentration, bladder pressure, and so on. While there is significantly more disagreement in terms of cultural questions, at least some historic issues seem to have…
Full article content could not be extracted automatically. Read the original below.
Source:
LessWrong AI
· lesswrong.com