Wei_Dai comments on St. Petersburg Mugging Implies You Have Bounded Utility - Less Wrong

10 Post author: TimFreeman 07 June 2011 03:06PM

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

Comments (163)

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

Comment author: TimFreeman 07 June 2011 07:16:36PM 1 point [-]

Hyperreals or some other modification to the standard framework (see discussion of "infinity shades" in Bostrom) are necessary in order to say that a 50% chance of infinite utility is better than a 1/3^^^3 chance of infinite utility.

Sigh, we seem to be talking past each other. You're talking about choosing which unlikely god jerks you around, and I'm trying to say that it's eventually time to eat lunch. If you have infinite utilities, how can you ever justify prioritizing something finite and likely, like eating lunch, over something unlikely but infinite? Keeping a few dollars is like eating lunch, so if you can't rationally decide to eat lunch, the question is which unlikely god you'll give your money to. I agree that it probably won't be me.

Read the Hajek paper for the full details.

I think you mean Arguments for - and against - probabilism. If you meant something else, please correct me.

Comment author: Wei_Dai 08 June 2011 01:17:15AM *  1 point [-]

If you have infinite utilities, how can you ever justify prioritizing something finite and likely, like eating lunch, over something unlikely but infinite?

Why is eating lunch "finite", given that we have the possibility of becoming gods ourselves, and eating lunch makes that possibility more likely (compared to not eating lunch)?

ETA: Suppose you saw convincing evidence that skipping lunch would make you more productive at FAI-building (say there's an experiment showing that lunch makes people mentally slow in the afternoon), you would start skipping lunch, right? Even if you wouldn't, would it be irrational for someone else to do so?