You think this is clickbait? It isn’t. Of course you can just now go about your day and skip reading this and drink your coffee and fool yourself your entire life (or even better, downvote). Because it is too painful to admit that we don't know anything. Life is already suffering, I don't need more. Ok, goodbye. Good luck pretending.
The truth is that you are deluded (me included). You pretend you know things you don’t. You cling to Bayes, Science, and Effective Altruism as if they are hard ground. They are not. They are sandcastles.
1. Bayes, Science and Effective Altruism do not exist.
Yes, you read that right. They don't exist. Or at least there is no way of knowing. They are symbols, abstractions, noises your species makes. These words itself we invented. You have never once encountered “Science” in direct experience. You have encountered thoughts, sensations, perceptions, memories, and then you named some of those clusters “science.” Same with Bayes. Same with EA.
Pushback: “But these constructs correspond to something real. If we were to change the word for a phenomenon, the phenomenon would still exist!”
That is already an assumption. You say planes fly because of science. But pause: what do you actually have? A stream of sensations that you interpret as “plane.” You do not know what a plane is. You do not know it exists outside your consciousness. You don’t even know if there is an “outside.” You only know there is experience (colored shapes, sounds, tactile impressions, thoughts). To jump from that to “science works” is already a leap of faith.
2. You cannot prove duality or non-duality.
Maybe the world is made of objects, relations, probabilities, priors. Maybe it is not. Maybe everything is a seamless awareness where even the distinction between “inside” and “outside” collapses. Both frameworks are possible. Both appear coherent. You have no ultimate ground to decide.
Pushback: “But Bayesian reasoning lets us weigh probabilities between frameworks. My prior let's me conclude that the physical universe is a lot more likely!!”
That is circular. To use Bayes at all, you must already assume that Bayes is valid. You must assume probabilities mean something. You must assume inference is possible. But the truth is that you don't know shit. You cannot bootstrap certainty about reasoning by using reasoning. It is epistemic sleight of hand.
3. Why Bayes collapses.
The Bayesian framework tells you to start with a prior and update based on evidence. But to even assign a prior, you must already assume that probability, evidence, and inference are meaningful. That is not neutral. That is a choice of yours, and the same as having faith in god, or that you will be born again as a bunny. If you are actually truth-seeking and willing to change your mind, you will never be able to ridicule somebody that believes in these things again. You know this, because you don't even know what reality is.
If your goal is utility and feeling good, fine. Just pretend then and brush off this article as just another "opinion" quickly close this and distract yourself. Then you will (hopefully) forget.
4. The naked conclusion.
You know nothing. Not one thing. Not that you are in a body. Not that you are typing these words. Not that time is real. Every single thing you take as “knowledge” is a story you tell about appearances. And the stories can always collapse. EA is a story itself. Entirely made up by a bunch of people that want to feel better about their life.
The only honest position is radical epistemic humility: to admit you stand on nothing.
Pushback: “But that is paralyzing.”
Yes. That is why you run from it. That is why you cling to Bayes and Science and EA as if they are lifeboats. They are not lifeboats. They are teddy bears. Comfort objects. If you want comfort, fine. But if you want truth, don't cling to them.
I am serious. If you really care about truth, start from the point that you know absolutely nothing.
