steven0461 comments on Average utilitarianism must be correct? - Less Wrong

2 Post author: PhilGoetz 06 April 2009 05:10PM

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

Comments (159)

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

Comment author: steven0461 06 April 2009 10:56:01PM *  2 points [-]

If your utility were defined over all possible futures, you wouldn't speak of maximizing expected utility. You would speak of maximizing utility.

The utility function defined on lotteries is the expectation value of the utility function defined on futures, so maximizing one means maximizing the expectation value of the other. When we say "maximizing expected utility" we're referring to the utility function defined on futures, not the utility function defined on lotteries. (As far as I know, all such utility functions are by definition defined over all possible futures; else the formalism wouldn't work.)

edit: you seem to be thinking in terms of maximizing the expectation of some number stored in your brain, but you should be thinking more in terms of maximizing the expectation of some number Platonically attached to each possible future.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 06 April 2009 11:53:09PM 1 point [-]

The utility function defined on lotteries is the expectation value of the utility function defined on futures, so maximizing one means maximizing the expectation value of the other.

Yes. I realize that now.

Comment author: steven0461 07 April 2009 12:06:04AM *  1 point [-]

Ah yes, sorry, I should have known from your "EDIT 2". I don't agree that you were right in essence; averaging over all outcomes and totaling over all outcomes mean the exact same thing as far as I can tell, and maximizing expected utility does correspond to averaging over all outcomes and not just the subset where you're alive.