= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
conchis comments on Utilons vs. Hedons - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (112)
Redefining "utility" like this doesn't help us with the actual problem at hand: what do we do if Omega offers to double the f(x) which we're actually maximizing?
In your restatement of the problem, the only thing we assume about Omega's offer is that it would change the universe in a desirable way (f is increasing in V(x)). Of course we can find an f such that a doubling in V translates to adding a constant to f, or if we like, even an infinitesimal increase in f. But all this means is that Omega is offering us the wrong thing, which we don't really value.
It wasn't intended to help with the the problem specified in terms of f(x). For the reasons set out in the thread beginning here, I don't find the problem specified in terms of f(x) very interesting.
You're assuming the output of V(x) is ordinal. It could be cardinal.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean here. "Wrong" relative to what?
Eh? Valutilons were defined to be something we value (ETA: each of us individually, rather than collectively).