I strong downvoted this post because it tries to silently discharge the premises which it uses for proof and replace them with “really is better”, invokes infinity without naming the class it comes out of, and glosses over things commonly accepted otherwise like ‘declining marginal utility of X’ where X is substituted with ‘shrimp’ in this case.
Using the actual surreal numbers with the surreal VNM rationality theorem would instead show the problem. What if I set one shrimp’s value at the first surreal infinitesimal ϵ? Then it would be a certain preference, but lexicographically below everyday life’s ones.
Recalling the declining marginal utility would instead show the problem. What if I care for arbitrarily many shrimp at most as 5 quality-adjusted-life-years?
So, unsound logic, from my POV, is leveraged to argue for a pre-selected conclusion, which explains the post total karma.
I mean it’s totally coherent to value a shrimp at infinitesimal. But that is unintuitive in the ways I describe in the post (involving some arbitrarily vast gulf between the first generaiton that’s non-infintesimal wrt the spectrum argument) and implying that you should torture 10^10000000 shrimp to prolong a person’s life by one second.
I strong downvoted this post because it tries to silently discharge the premises which it uses for proof and replace them with “really is better”, invokes infinity without naming the class it comes out of, and glosses over things commonly accepted otherwise like ‘declining marginal utility of X’ where X is substituted with ‘shrimp’ in this case.
Using the actual surreal numbers with the surreal VNM rationality theorem would instead show the problem. What if I set one shrimp’s value at the first surreal infinitesimal ϵ? Then it would be a certain preference, but lexicographically below everyday life’s ones.
Recalling the declining marginal utility would instead show the problem. What if I care for arbitrarily many shrimp at most as 5 quality-adjusted-life-years?
So, unsound logic, from my POV, is leveraged to argue for a pre-selected conclusion, which explains the post total karma.
I mean it’s totally coherent to value a shrimp at infinitesimal. But that is unintuitive in the ways I describe in the post (involving some arbitrarily vast gulf between the first generaiton that’s non-infintesimal wrt the spectrum argument) and implying that you should torture 10^10000000 shrimp to prolong a person’s life by one second.