khriys comments on Torture vs. Dust Specks - Less Wrong

39 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 30 October 2007 02:50AM

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

Comments (596)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 07 February 2013 01:17:34PM *  1 point [-]

The point of the question was to ask us to judge between the disutility of many people dust specked and a single person tortured, not to place a value on whether 3^^^3 existences is itself a bad or a good thing.

So, kinda of the former interpretation, except that the "3^^^3 people" part is merely the setting that enables the question, not really the point of the question...

EDIT: Btw, since I'm an anti-specker, I tried to calculate an upper bound once, for number of specks... It ended up being about 1.2 * 10^20 dust specks

Comment author: khriys 07 February 2013 01:36:39PM *  -2 points [-]

Surely the incomprehensibly large number is part of the point of the question, otherwise why not use the set of all existing people being dust specked? ~7 billion dustmoted vs. 1 tortured?

3^^^3 people is more sentient mass than could physically fit in our universe.

Edit: Here's how I imagined that playing out: 3^^^3 people are brought into existence, displacing all the matter of the universe. Which, while still momentarily conscious, each gets a mote of this matter in their eye, causing minor discomfort. They then all immediately die, and in the following eternity their bodies and the remainder of the universe collapses to a single point.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 07 February 2013 02:13:12PM 1 point [-]

Surely the incomprehensibly large number is part of the point of the question, otherwise why not use the set of all existing people being dust specked? ~7 billion dustmoted vs. 1 tortured?

Because 7 billion dust specks aren't enough. Obviously.

The point of the question is an extremely large number of tiny disutilities compared to a single vast disutility. When you're imagining 3^^^3 deaths instead and the destruction of the universe, you're kinda missing the point.

Comment author: khriys 07 February 2013 02:19:57PM -1 points [-]

What about 7 billion stubbed toes?

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 07 February 2013 08:02:14PM *  1 point [-]

A few posts up, I've already linked to some calculations about various scenarios. You can look at them, if you are really genuinely interested - but why would you be? It's the principle of the thing that's interesting, not some inexact numbers one roughly calculates.