not a want of the kind that preference utilitarianism aggregates
-
-
Sum isn't close, because sum is unbounded, and thus expected value can be undefined.
-
measure-weighted sum then
-
What? I would say use f∘sum, where f:ℝ→[0,1] is monotonic, but it doesn't sound like you're describing that.
-
well how are we defining what's one thing to sum over. if one thing is "finite fraction of available measure"
-
then there are finitely many things. even if in some other sense there are infinitely many
-
like are me and my clone one thing or are we two things. and so on
-
i don't really understand these issues but they intuitively feel orthogonal to whether sum is a good function
-
which i guess you agree with because you suggest separating it into a sum and a transformation to unit interval
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
like there isn't a function f such that intelligence of brain equals f of intelligences of neurons
-
because it's about how they're arranged into a brain. but i'm probably saying obvious-to-you things now
-
What about the value of lives as a function of all those lives?
-
So if you miss one life in your census, you might be able to sum that in, or might be way off.
-
hm well, can a set of lives be different without any individual life being different
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.