I can give you solutions for all your sample problems. The apple-swapping problem is a prisoner’s dilemma; agree to split the utilon and get out. The biggest-number problem can be easily resolved by stepping outside the problem framework with a simple pyramid scheme (create enough utilons to create X more entities who can create utility; each entity then creates enough utility to make X entities plus pay its creator three times its creation cost. Creator then spends two thirds of those utilons creating new entities, and the remaining third on itself. Every entity engages in this scheme, ensuring exponentially-increasing utility for everybody. Adjust costs and payouts however you want, infinite utility is infinite utility.) There are sideways solutions for just about any problem.
The problem isn’t that any of your little sample problems don’t have solutions, the problem is that you’ve already carefully eliminated all the solutions you can think of, and will keep eliminating solutions until nobody can think of a solution—if I suggested the pyramid scheme, I’m sure you’d say I’m not allowed to create new entities using my utilons, because I’m breaking what your thought experiment was intended to convey and just showing off.
I bypassed all of that and got to the point—you’re not criticizing rationality for its failure to function in this universe, you’re criticizing rationality for its behavior in radically difference universes and the failure of that behavior to conform to basic sanity-checks that only make sense in the universe you yourself happen to occupy.
Rationality belongs to the universe. In a bizarre and insane universe, rational behavior is bizarre and insane, as it should be.
The problem is: 1) 0 times infinity is undefined not 0 2) You are talking about infinity as something that can be reached, when it is only something that can be approached.
These are both very well known mathematical properties.
“If I suggested the pyramid scheme, I’m sure you’d say I’m not allowed to create new entities using my utilons”—If you read Richard Kennawy’s comment—you’ll see that utilions are not what you think that they are.
“The apple-swapping problem is a prisoner’s dilemma; agree to split the utilon and get out.”—You may want to read this link. “Likewise, people who responds to the Trolley problem by saying that they would call the police are not talking about the moral intuitions that the Trolley problem intends to explore. There’s nothing wrong with you if those problems are not interesting to you. But fighting the hypothetical by challenging the premises of the scenario is exactly the same as saying, “I don’t find this topic interesting for whatever reason, and wish to talk about something I am interested in.”″
Correct. Now, observe that’s you’ve created multiple problems with massive “Undefined” where any optimization is supposed to take place, and then claimed you’ve proven that optimization is impossible.
You are talking about infinity as something that can be reached, when it is only something that can be approached.
No, I am not. I never assume anybody ends up with the apple/utilon, for example. There’s just never a point where it makes sense to stop, so you should never stop. If this doesn’t make sense to you and offends your sensibilities, well, quit constructing nonsensical scenarios that don’t match the reality you understand.
If you read Richard Kennawy’s comment—you’ll see that utilions are not what you think that they are.
They’re not anything at all, which was my point about you letting abstract things do all your heavy lifting for you.
“The apple-swapping problem is a prisoner’s dilemma; agree to split the utilon and get out.”—You may want to read this link. “Likewise, people who responds to the Trolley problem by saying that they would call the police are not talking about the moral intuitions that the Trolley problem intends to explore. There’s nothing wrong with you if those problems are not interesting to you. But fighting the hypothetical by challenging the premises of the scenario is exactly the same as saying, “I don’t find this topic interesting for whatever reason, and wish to talk about something I am interested in.”″
I do believe I already addressed the scenarios you raised.
Better than your philosophic ability.
I can give you solutions for all your sample problems. The apple-swapping problem is a prisoner’s dilemma; agree to split the utilon and get out. The biggest-number problem can be easily resolved by stepping outside the problem framework with a simple pyramid scheme (create enough utilons to create X more entities who can create utility; each entity then creates enough utility to make X entities plus pay its creator three times its creation cost. Creator then spends two thirds of those utilons creating new entities, and the remaining third on itself. Every entity engages in this scheme, ensuring exponentially-increasing utility for everybody. Adjust costs and payouts however you want, infinite utility is infinite utility.) There are sideways solutions for just about any problem.
The problem isn’t that any of your little sample problems don’t have solutions, the problem is that you’ve already carefully eliminated all the solutions you can think of, and will keep eliminating solutions until nobody can think of a solution—if I suggested the pyramid scheme, I’m sure you’d say I’m not allowed to create new entities using my utilons, because I’m breaking what your thought experiment was intended to convey and just showing off.
I bypassed all of that and got to the point—you’re not criticizing rationality for its failure to function in this universe, you’re criticizing rationality for its behavior in radically difference universes and the failure of that behavior to conform to basic sanity-checks that only make sense in the universe you yourself happen to occupy.
Rationality belongs to the universe. In a bizarre and insane universe, rational behavior is bizarre and insane, as it should be.
Sorry, I was being rude then.
The problem is: 1) 0 times infinity is undefined not 0 2) You are talking about infinity as something that can be reached, when it is only something that can be approached.
These are both very well known mathematical properties.
“If I suggested the pyramid scheme, I’m sure you’d say I’m not allowed to create new entities using my utilons”—If you read Richard Kennawy’s comment—you’ll see that utilions are not what you think that they are.
“The apple-swapping problem is a prisoner’s dilemma; agree to split the utilon and get out.”—You may want to read this link. “Likewise, people who responds to the Trolley problem by saying that they would call the police are not talking about the moral intuitions that the Trolley problem intends to explore. There’s nothing wrong with you if those problems are not interesting to you. But fighting the hypothetical by challenging the premises of the scenario is exactly the same as saying, “I don’t find this topic interesting for whatever reason, and wish to talk about something I am interested in.”″
Correct. Now, observe that’s you’ve created multiple problems with massive “Undefined” where any optimization is supposed to take place, and then claimed you’ve proven that optimization is impossible.
No, I am not. I never assume anybody ends up with the apple/utilon, for example. There’s just never a point where it makes sense to stop, so you should never stop. If this doesn’t make sense to you and offends your sensibilities, well, quit constructing nonsensical scenarios that don’t match the reality you understand.
They’re not anything at all, which was my point about you letting abstract things do all your heavy lifting for you.
I do believe I already addressed the scenarios you raised.