AndyWood comments on Shut Up and Divide? - Less Wrong

60 Post author: Wei_Dai 09 February 2010 08:09PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (258)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: AndyWood 09 February 2010 08:24:07PM *  2 points [-]

The title of this post jumped out at me. From a comment of mine, long ago:

Maximize happiness in the individual ... I say, "in the individual", in strong opposition to dust specks. I remain puzzled by why the "shut up and multiply" maxim would not be accompanied by "shut up and divide". (That is, 3^^^3 specks / 3^^^3 individuals = no pain.) I remain open to good arguments to the contrary - I haven't read one yet.

EDIT: That last sentence is no longer true. I regard this comment by Eliezer as the best argument I've seen, and one that still confounds my moral intuitions on specks:

While some people tried to appeal to non-linear aggregation, you would have to appeal to a non-linear aggregation which was non-linear enough to reduce 3^^^3 to a small constant. In other words it has to be effectively flat. And I doubt they would have said anything different if I'd said 3^^^^3.

Comment author: Wei_Dai 09 February 2010 08:36:17PM 1 point [-]

Actually, are we making the same point? Or am I just stealing your phrase for my own use?

Comment author: AndyWood 09 February 2010 09:35:04PM *  0 points [-]

I do not think we are talking about the same subject/application. I do think you are using the phrase to refer to roughly the same concept, and in the same context of how to do 'morality calculus'.

Comment author: Wei_Dai 09 February 2010 08:31:44PM 0 points [-]

Thanks, I forgot to Google that phrase. :) I'll link to your comment.