You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Tyrrell_McAllister comments on Why didn't people (apparently?) understand the metaethics sequence? - Less Wrong Discussion

12 Post author: ChrisHallquist 29 October 2013 11:04PM

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

Comments (229)

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

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 31 October 2013 10:45:32PM *  2 points [-]

Since Eliezer-Good is roughly synonymous to CEV, maybe we can just call it CEV from now on?

This leaves out the "rigid designator" bit that people are discussing up-thread. Your formulation invites the response, "So, if our CEV were different, then different things would be good?" Eliezer wants the answer to this to be "No."

Perhaps we can say that "Eliezer-Good" is roughly synonymous to "Our CEV as it actually is in this, the actual, world as this world is right now."

Thus, if our CEV were different, we would be in a different possible world, and so our CEV in that world would not determine what is good. Even in that different, non-actual, possible world, what is good would be determined by what our actual CEV says is good in this, the actual, world.