You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Where probabilities are unknowable (which is often the case in, say, political decisions), it's not the case that reason is ineffective. It merely entails a methodology very different from utility theory—among other things focused on institutional rules not individual decisions.
One of the damaging consequences of utility theory is that it makes people *uncritically certain* that they have ways of extracting knowledge from ignorance. Because (they reason) if there can be no such ways, there must be no such thing as rational decision making.
I wonder how, under utilitarianism, one is to make sense of people forcefully causing a person to adopt a different utility function than the one they originally had. (Through coercion, brain rewrites..) There seems to be no way to make sense of this, let alone see it as evil.
In other words, it would seem under utilitarianism coercive (moral) education isn't wrong. Or right. Or anything.
In my experience, utilitarians who’ve given this any thought at all tend to assign the meta problem its own utility function, e.g. under which *feasible* utility function can I maximize utility? IMO, this is why wireheading advocates are often utilitarian thinkers
What do they do with the next level of meta after that? Do they try to determine the most feasible way to find out what feasible utility functions they can maximize?
I’m not saying it’s coherent
Yeah, my probability estimate of it being coherent has certainly gone down.
In any case utilitarians are often times some kind of socialist-so though coercive education mightn’t be great for individuals now & then-or even most of the time is, for them, utterly outweighed by its benefits to the collective. *Society* wins even if Joe & Jane typically lose.
It's like Plato's totalitarian argument that individuals need each other, but society doesn't need anything outside of itself and is consequently more important.
True, not only for probabilities and the utility theory, but also for whole classical mathematics. A precise world is required to give a proof but the correctness of initial assumptions is often not questioned.
True and moreover, according to the ergodicity theory, expected utility theory makes a flawed assumption that we live outside of time, in parallel universe, and all current economic and financial assume EUT is true.
For more please read @ole_b_peters belowhttps://twitter.com/ole_b_peters/status/1075860472409264128?s=20 …
It seems like a risk assessment might be a place to start with the probability and consequence info that you have.
Just honouring my family. I look forward to Constructors. Maybe I shouldn't say Quantum Ether as a craptacular abbreviation.pic.twitter.com/dvsYnPDAjb
I don't understand the connect\disconnect between numbers and philosophy.... errrrr...? I don't understand the high\low of that.
You know I could write it down, it's just the utility.
What are your thoughts on the Fibonacci sequence? What are your thoughts on the various measurement systems vs the rotation of the earth? How deep in induction should one go on any given topic? What is the utility of merging Hegel with any Radix scheme?
How does one merge this with gravity? What would be the highest speed possible at which we could measure this?
What would be a logical scheme or process in getting to the mirror inverse reflection or the regular reflection of that velocity?
How would one correct that vibration? What ontological processes would be undertaken? When would those process not be undertaken? Why did we invent alternating current?
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
