paper-machine comments on Value Stability and Aggregation - Less Wrong

8 Post author: jimrandomh 06 February 2011 06:30PM

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

Comments (37)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 08 February 2011 01:36:15AM 1 point [-]
  1. A(paper), B(rock), C(scissors). A>B>C>A

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with intransitive preferences. Paper beats rock if they are played against each other, but you don't prefer paper over rock. Well, you do if your opponent plays scissors, or if you have some foreknowledge that they're especially likely to play scissors, but in the absence of that...

Comment deleted 08 February 2011 02:07:02AM *  [-]
Comment author: endoself 08 February 2011 10:41:02AM 0 points [-]

I would advise them to write down a probability distribution and calculate the utilities of pleasing vs displeasing the Raven-God; that transitivity holds should then be obvious.

Comment deleted 08 February 2011 12:52:19PM [-]
Comment author: endoself 08 February 2011 05:52:14PM 1 point [-]

The god's preferences depend on its state. It prefers Ashen-Feathered Night+raven over Ashen-Feathered Night+obsidian, but does not in general prefer raven to obsidian. A preference must take into account all relevant factors.

Comment author: wnoise 08 February 2011 01:18:55PM 0 points [-]

Gods are not humans, nor rational. The only entities making actual choices are the tribes.

Comment deleted 08 February 2011 01:39:24PM [-]
Comment author: wnoise 08 February 2011 08:48:10PM 0 points [-]

Eh. I liked the story, and the imagery, I just didn't find it at all a good argument.