It's not that the decision is vacuous, but that you sitting here right now do not know how you would choose. Similar to the other problems I mentioned: you can't know what it is like to know of "3^^^3" people and for your action to affect those people.
-
-
Replying to @ReferentOfSelf @ContentOfMedia and
For this to be a satisfying resolution to a thought experiment, I think I need to see justification for why this kind of fighting the hypothetical is OK even though ordinary kinds generally aren't.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MoralOfStory @ReferentOfSelf and
Actually, are you saying "syntax error: it's impossible to compile this thought experiment into a situation a human could conceivably experience" or "you!readingtwitter doesn't know what you!inexperiment would actually feel/do"
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MoralOfStory @ReferentOfSelf and
(I think the latter is true but not relevant, and the former can be fixed with a sufficient amount of scene building, therefore is fighting the hypothetical)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MoralOfStory @ContentOfMedia and
I think the former is probably true, and the later is definitely true. It's not the reader's responsibility to completely rework a thought experiment so that it is intelligible. The distinction between "this is how the situation is" and actually being in the situation.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ReferentOfSelf @ContentOfMedia and
I think that's a super useful distinction to make in real life and most of the point of the thought experiment is to not make that distinction, so as to focus on the dilemma at hand.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MoralOfStory @ContentOfMedia and
I don't understand. To me you are saying "we should be able to make a decision regarding this unintelligible description of the world making a type error between terms of type Nat and quantities...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ReferentOfSelf @MoralOfStory and
... and where it would require probably more bits of information than the human mind can handle to communicate the version of the thought experiment which doesn't make that type error by communicating the quantity instead of the term of type Nat"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ReferentOfSelf @MoralOfStory and
And it would probably take more bits of information than the human mind can handle to actually be in the situation where you can be justified in believing Omega's claim about the possibility of dust specking 3^^^3 people
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ReferentOfSelf @ContentOfMedia and
Are you claiming 1) no one can feel the full force of 3^^^3 of anything, therefore the thought experiment is broken, or 2) no one can have a justified belief involving 3^^^3 of anything, therefore it is broken?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
(I think both are missing the point of the thought experiment, which is to put into conflict two basic human urges. But that's a much less interesting disagreement.)
-
-
Replying to @MoralOfStory @ContentOfMedia and
The thought experiment is fundamentally confused about the nature and reality of mathematical constructs.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.