Toggle comments on Open thread, Aug. 03 - Aug. 09, 2015 - Less Wrong

5 Post author: MrMind 03 August 2015 07:05AM

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

Comments (177)

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

Comment author: DataPacRat 04 August 2015 02:21:10AM 0 points [-]

Cardinal numbers for utilons?

I have a hunch.

Trying to add up utilons or hedons can quickly lead to all sorts of problems, which are probably already familiar to you. However, there are all sorts of wacky and wonderful branches of non-intuitive mathematics, which may prove of more use than elementary addition. I half-remember that regular math can be treated as part of set theory, and there are various branches of set theory which can have some, but not all, of the properties of regular math - for example, being able to say that X < Y, but not necessarily that X+Z > Y. A bit of Wikipedia digging has reminded me of Cardinal numbers, which seem at least a step in the right direction: If the elements of set X has a one-to-one correspondence with the elements of set Y, then they're equal, and if not, then they're not. This seems to be a closer approximation of utilons than the natural numbers, such as, say, if the elements of set X being the reasons that X is good.

But I could be wrong.

I'm already well past the part of math-stuff that I understand well; I'd need to do a good bit of reading just to get my feet back under me. Does anyone here, more mathematically-inclined than I, have a better intuition of why this approach may or may not be helpful?

(I'm asking because I'm considering throwing in someone who tries to follow a cardinal-utilon-based theory of ethics in something I'm writing, as a novel change from the more commonly-presented ethical theories. But to do that, I'd need to know at least a few of the consequences of this approach might end up being. Any help would be greatly appreciated.)

Comment author: Toggle 04 August 2015 06:51:39AM *  1 point [-]

Seems to be an established conversation around this point, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_utility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_utility

"The idea of cardinal utility is considered outdated except for specific contexts such as decision making under risk, utilitarian welfare evaluations, and discounted utilities for intertemporal evaluations where it is still applied. Elsewhere, such as in general consumer theory, ordinal utility with its weaker assumptions Is preferred because results that are just as strong can be derived."

Or you could go back to the original Theory of Games proof, which I believe was ordinal- it's going to depend on your axioms. In that document, Von Neumann definitely didn't go so far as to treat utility as simply an integer.

Comment author: DataPacRat 04 August 2015 10:04:06PM 1 point [-]

Seems to be an established conversation around this point

Well, I guess coming up with an idea a century-ish old could be considered better than /not/ having come up with something that recent...

Comment author: Toggle 05 August 2015 02:22:22AM 1 point [-]

When I was a freshman, I invented the electric motor! I think it's something that just happens when you're getting acquainted with a subject, and understand it well- you get a sense of what the good questions are, and start asking them without being told.

Comment author: roystgnr 06 August 2015 08:06:35PM 0 points [-]

That's one of the most amusing phrases on Wikipedia: "specific contexts such as decision making under risk". In general you don't have to make decisions and/or you can predict the future perfectly, I suppose.