Note: I think that the fact that there are only two lives/minds mentally posited in the problem, “You” and “Frank” may significantly modify the perceived value of lives/minds.
After all, consider these problems:
1: The white room contains you, and 999 other people. The cost of the Nanofab is 1 life.
2: The white room contains you, and 999 other people. The cost of the Nanofab is 2 lives.
3: The white room contains you, and 999 other people. The cost of the Nanofab is 500 lives.
4: The white room contains you, and 999 other people. The cost of the Nanofab is 900 lives.
5: The white room contains you, and 1 other person. The cost of the Nanofab is 1 life.
If lives are sacred in general, you should be equally reluctant to buy the Nanofab in all cases. That seems unlikely to be the case for most people.
On the other hand if the sacred value is “When you and someone else are alone, don’t sacrifice one of you” Someone might be willing to buy the Nanofab in cases 1-4 and not 5.
(Of course, seeing all options at the same time likely also influences behavior)
Note that part of the point of using surreals is that you wouldn’t be equally reluctant—you would be twice as reluctant if two lives were on the line than if one was, because 2ω = 2 * ω.
… that said, I’m heavily rethinking exactly what I’m using for my tiering argument, here.
Note that part of the point of using surreals is that you wouldn’t be equally reluctant—you would be twice as reluctant if two lives were on the line than if one was, because 2ω = 2 * ω.
Thank you for explaining. I don’t think I fully understood the formula explaining that surreal numbers are dense in tiers.
… that said, I’m heavily rethinking exactly what I’m using for my tiering argument, here.
Note: I think that the fact that there are only two lives/minds mentally posited in the problem, “You” and “Frank” may significantly modify the perceived value of lives/minds.
After all, consider these problems:
1: The white room contains you, and 999 other people. The cost of the Nanofab is 1 life.
2: The white room contains you, and 999 other people. The cost of the Nanofab is 2 lives.
3: The white room contains you, and 999 other people. The cost of the Nanofab is 500 lives.
4: The white room contains you, and 999 other people. The cost of the Nanofab is 900 lives.
5: The white room contains you, and 1 other person. The cost of the Nanofab is 1 life.
If lives are sacred in general, you should be equally reluctant to buy the Nanofab in all cases. That seems unlikely to be the case for most people.
On the other hand if the sacred value is “When you and someone else are alone, don’t sacrifice one of you” Someone might be willing to buy the Nanofab in cases 1-4 and not 5.
(Of course, seeing all options at the same time likely also influences behavior)
Note that part of the point of using surreals is that you wouldn’t be equally reluctant—you would be twice as reluctant if two lives were on the line than if one was, because 2ω = 2 * ω.
… that said, I’m heavily rethinking exactly what I’m using for my tiering argument, here.
Thank you for explaining. I don’t think I fully understood the formula explaining that surreal numbers are dense in tiers.
Glad I was thought provoking!