https://twitter.com/the_lagrangian/status/1200049166233284608?s=21 …https://twitter.com/The_Lagrangian/status/1200049166233284608 …
-
-
Replying to @The_Lagrangian @s_r_constantin
this is not unambiguously evil but I think still constitutes a counterexample
6 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
-
note this was in 1950 when nukes weren't as powerful and note the world did go up in flames later in a nontrivial % of universes
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @VesselOfSpirit @s_r_constantin
the latter part is the part that makes it not unambiguous, but... preemptively killing 100s of thousands or millions of people is evil
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @The_Lagrangian @s_r_constantin
in a parallel universe where 100s of millions of people died in the 1980s, would you be making the same argument?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @VesselOfSpirit @s_r_constantin
No but we are not in that parallel universe, which is evidence in favor of the evil claim
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
FWIW I am not trying to argue the statement “Von Neumann was evil” if that is what you are reacting to
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @The_Lagrangian @s_r_constantin
i think whether an act is evil depends on the distribution of consequences that it could be reasonably expected to have, but not which random draw we got from that distribution
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @VesselOfSpirit @s_r_constantin
sure, but this can be used to justify anything since it’s impossible to observe the distribution
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
it's possible to reason about the distribution though
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.