This seems complicated. Here’s what I’ve worked out after about an hour of thinking about it:
If we are considering this from a many worlds perspective, then am I correct if I say I have to multiply all entities? As an example, there isn’t 1 person considering the switch, there are A people. There isn’t 1 computer, there are B computers. In essence, there are A people deciding for B computers with all states, representing C simulations that may or may not be experiencing suffering, and based on my decision, there will either be D suffering(on) or E suffering(off).
Now, if my primary goal is to minimize suffering, then I should pick the smaller of D and E. If D=E, then my decision is irrelevant for my primary goal.
So the real question is, is D=E, or is D!=E?
The initial problem seems to assume that there will be less suffering with it off. But it doesn’t actually lay out an argument for the size of D and E.
It seems like the size of D and E is an important consideration. My current understanding of math theory is:
1: There is a difference between 1 quadrillion units of suffering and 999 trillion units of suffering. Pick 999 trillion, it’s smaller.
2: There is not a difference between the infinity of the natural numbers and the infinity of the natural numbers-1 trillion. Your choice doesn’t matter.
3: There is a difference between the infinity of the natural numbers and the infinity of the real numbers. Pick the infinity of the natural numbers, it’s smaller.
4: There is not a difference between the infinity of the real numbers and the infinity of the real numbers minus the infinity of the natural numbers. Your choice doesn’t matter.
And despite all of that explanation, I haven’t even yet taken to account the possibility of being wrong about my mathematical judgement of the sizes of D and E, or the possibility of being wrong about many worlds (note, not necessarily in general, but about the specifics I use to attempt to calculate D and E.)
Does it sound like I’m on the right track for considering this problem?
This seems complicated. Here’s what I’ve worked out after about an hour of thinking about it:
If we are considering this from a many worlds perspective, then am I correct if I say I have to multiply all entities? As an example, there isn’t 1 person considering the switch, there are A people. There isn’t 1 computer, there are B computers. In essence, there are A people deciding for B computers with all states, representing C simulations that may or may not be experiencing suffering, and based on my decision, there will either be D suffering(on) or E suffering(off).
Now, if my primary goal is to minimize suffering, then I should pick the smaller of D and E. If D=E, then my decision is irrelevant for my primary goal.
So the real question is, is D=E, or is D!=E?
The initial problem seems to assume that there will be less suffering with it off. But it doesn’t actually lay out an argument for the size of D and E.
It seems like the size of D and E is an important consideration. My current understanding of math theory is:
1: There is a difference between 1 quadrillion units of suffering and 999 trillion units of suffering. Pick 999 trillion, it’s smaller.
2: There is not a difference between the infinity of the natural numbers and the infinity of the natural numbers-1 trillion. Your choice doesn’t matter.
3: There is a difference between the infinity of the natural numbers and the infinity of the real numbers. Pick the infinity of the natural numbers, it’s smaller.
4: There is not a difference between the infinity of the real numbers and the infinity of the real numbers minus the infinity of the natural numbers. Your choice doesn’t matter.
And despite all of that explanation, I haven’t even yet taken to account the possibility of being wrong about my mathematical judgement of the sizes of D and E, or the possibility of being wrong about many worlds (note, not necessarily in general, but about the specifics I use to attempt to calculate D and E.)
Does it sound like I’m on the right track for considering this problem?