That is not my understanding. The only necessary addition to physics is “any possible mechanism of varying any element in your model of the universe”. ie. You need physics and a tiny amount of closely related mathematics. That will give you a function that gives you every possible action → result pair.
I believe this only serves to strengthen your main point about the possibility of separating epistemic investigation from ethics entirely.
“any possible mechanism of varying any element in your model of the universe”.
That’s a decision theory. For instance, if you perform causal surgery, that’s CDT. If you change all computationally identical elements, that’s TDT. And so on.
That’s a decision theory. For instance, if you perform causal surgery, that’s CDT. If you change all computationally identical elements, that’s TDT. And so on.
I don’t agree. A decision theory will sometimes require the production of action result pairs, as is the case with CDT, TDT and any other the decision algorithm with a consequentialist component. Yet not all production of such pairs is a ‘decision theory’. A full mathematical model of every possible state to the outcomes produced is not a decision theory in any meaningful sense. It is just a solid understanding of all of physics.
On one hand we have (physics + the ability to consider counterfactuals) and on the other we have systems for choosing specific counterfactuals to consider and compare.
If you don’t have a system to choose specific counterfactuals, that leaves you with all counterfactuals, that is, all world-histories, theoretically possible and not. How do you use that list to make decisions?
If you don’t have a system to choose specific counterfactuals, that leaves you with all counterfactuals, that is, all world-histories, theoretically possible and not. How do you use that list to make decisions?
That is my point. That is what the decision theory is for!
This conversation is kinda pointless. Therefore, my response comes in a short version and a long version.
Short:
Sorry, that was unclear. I did not make the mistake your last post implies I made. I’m pretty sure you’ve made some mistakes, but they’re really minor. We have nothing left to discuss.
Long:
Sorry, that was unclear.
The first time I posted it, it was a response to Eugene. Then you responded, criticizing it. Then, finally, it appears like we agree, so I reassert my original claim to make sure. In that context, this response is strange:
Ok, and it is still a claim that doesn’t refute anything I have previously said.
I wasn’t trying to refute you with this claim, I was trying to refute Eugene, then you tried to refute the claim.
That’s only true if you’re a human being.
That is not my understanding. The only necessary addition to physics is “any possible mechanism of varying any element in your model of the universe”. ie. You need physics and a tiny amount of closely related mathematics. That will give you a function that gives you every possible action → result pair.
I believe this only serves to strengthen your main point about the possibility of separating epistemic investigation from ethics entirely.
That’s a decision theory. For instance, if you perform causal surgery, that’s CDT. If you change all computationally identical elements, that’s TDT. And so on.
I don’t agree. A decision theory will sometimes require the production of action result pairs, as is the case with CDT, TDT and any other the decision algorithm with a consequentialist component. Yet not all production of such pairs is a ‘decision theory’. A full mathematical model of every possible state to the outcomes produced is not a decision theory in any meaningful sense. It is just a solid understanding of all of physics.
On one hand we have (physics + the ability to consider counterfactuals) and on the other we have systems for choosing specific counterfactuals to consider and compare.
If you don’t have a system to choose specific counterfactuals, that leaves you with all counterfactuals, that is, all world-histories, theoretically possible and not. How do you use that list to make decisions?
That is my point. That is what the decision theory is for!
I reassert my claim that:
Your null-decision theory doesn’t tell you what options you have. It tells you what options you would have, were you God.
This is a claim about definitions. You don’t seem to disagree with wedrifid on any question of substance in this thread.
Ok, and it is still a claim that doesn’t refute anything I have previously said. This conversation is going nowhere. exit(5)
Exit totally reasonable. I just need to point out one thing:
It wasn’t a claim in response to anything you said. It was a response to Eugene Nier.
It would have made more sense to me if it was made in reply to the relevant comment by Eugene.
This conversation is kinda pointless. Therefore, my response comes in a short version and a long version.
Short:
Sorry, that was unclear. I did not make the mistake your last post implies I made. I’m pretty sure you’ve made some mistakes, but they’re really minor. We have nothing left to discuss.
Long:
Sorry, that was unclear.
The first time I posted it, it was a response to Eugene. Then you responded, criticizing it. Then, finally, it appears like we agree, so I reassert my original claim to make sure. In that context, this response is strange:
I wasn’t trying to refute you with this claim, I was trying to refute Eugene, then you tried to refute the claim.