Perplexed 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: Perplexed 08 June 2011 04:05:51AM 1 point [-]

Taken care of in the OP's stipulations

Ah! I missed that. Thx. But I'm really not all that happy living in a world where TimFreeman was God, either. I suppose that means that I am not a real consequentialist.

Comment author: Wei_Dai 08 June 2011 04:21:07AM 3 points [-]

A consequentialist whose utility function's domain is world-histories instead of world-states is still a consequentialist...

Comment author: Perplexed 08 June 2011 07:50:32PM 1 point [-]

That leaves me curious as to what extraneous information a non-consequentialist sneaks into the utility function's domain. The world's state and the history of that state strike me as all there is.

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 08 June 2011 08:27:21PM 1 point [-]

I think non-consequentialists as Wei Dai uses the term don't use utility functions.

Comment author: Perplexed 08 June 2011 08:38:29PM 1 point [-]

Ah, yes. That works. Thanks.

Comment author: Peterdjones 08 June 2011 08:21:25PM 0 points [-]

They could focus on different information. A consequentialist discards information about virtue, a virtue theorist discards consequences.

Comment author: Perplexed 08 June 2011 08:36:40PM 1 point [-]

Ok, but it seems to me that a virtue theorist must believe that information about virtue is a part of information about the state of the world. So does the consequentialist deny that all this virtue information is real information - information that can "pay rent" by generating correct anticipation of future experiences?

Odd, a few hours ago I thought I knew what a consequentialist was. But now I can't seem to understand the concept regardless of whether I accept or reject Wei_Dai's claim.

Comment author: prase 08 June 2011 04:00:47PM 0 points [-]

But if he was a god, you choice to not give him money wouldn't change it. To be immune to his argument means that the restriction of a generally unbounded utility to a subset of states with TF being a god is bounded, which is strange, although probably consistent.