= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Coscott comments on Preferences without Existence - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (101)
I'm not following you here. I think Raiden has a valid point: we should shape the utility function so that Boltzmann brains don't dominate utility computations. The meta-framework for utility you constructed remains perfectly valid, it's just that the "local" utility of each universe has to be constructed with care (which is true about other meta-frameworks as well). E.g. we shouldn't assigned a utility of Graham's number of utilons to a universe just because it contains a Graham's number of Boltzmann brains: it's Pascal mugging.
Maybe we should start with a bounded utility function...
I am not sure if Raiden's intended point is the same as what you are saying here. If it is, then you can just ignore my other comment, it was arguing with a position nobody held.
I absolutely agree. The local utility of each universe does have to be constructed with care.
I also have strong feelings that all utility functions are bounded.
I was imagining one utility function for the multiverse, but perhaps that does not make sense. (since the collection of universes might not be a set)
Perhaps the best way to model the utility function in my philosophy might be to have a separate utility function for each universe, and a simplicity exchange rate between them.