Logos01 comments on A response to "Torture vs. Dustspeck": The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas - Less Wrong

-4 Post author: Logos01 30 November 2011 03:34AM

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

Comments (100)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 30 November 2011 05:02:38PM 1 point [-]

Nearly zero. That's part of the hypothesis: that it be the smallest possible unit of suffering. If the logarithmic scale of quantification for forms of suffering holds true, then forms of suffering at the maximal end of the scale would be practically infinite comparably.

As long as it's nonzero, then as I stated before, there exists some N such that N dust specks have greater negative utility than fifty years of torture. 3^^^3 and 50 are just proxies for whatever the true numbers are.

Correct, but a number that approaches infinity is not itself necessarily infinite; merely very large. 3^^^3 for example.

This is a category error. 3^^^3 does not approach infinity. It's a fixed number, it's not going anywhere.

The rest of your comment clarifies the offending inequality.

Comment author: Logos01 30 November 2011 05:20:06PM *  0 points [-]

This is a category error. 3^^^3 does not approach infinity. It's a fixed number, it's not going anywhere.

Can you intelligibly grasp it? Or is it "unimaginably large"? For purposes of human consideration, I do not feel it necessary to differentiate between a truly infinite number and one that is "pseudo-infinite" (where by pseudo-infinite I mean 'beyond our comprehension'). I admit this is an imperfect hack.

Comment author: [deleted] 30 November 2011 05:23:15PM 3 points [-]

For purposes of human consideration, I do not feel it necessary to differentiate between a truly infinite number and one that is "pseudo-infinite" (where by pseudo-infinite I mean 'beyond our comprehension').

That way lies the madness of pre-Weierstrass analysis.