I think upon reflection I maybe agree that there isn’t exactly an “argument” here – I think most of what Critch is doing is saying “here is a frame of how to think about a lot of game theoretic stuff.” He doesn’t (much) argue for that frame, but he lays out how it works, shows a bunch of examples, and basically is hoping (at this point) that the examples resonate.”
(I haven’t reread the whole sequence in detail but that was actually my recollection of it last time I read it)
So, I’ll retract my particular phrasing here.
I do think that intuitively, boundaries exist, and as soon as they are pointed out as a frame that’d be good to formalize and incorporate into game/decision theory, I’m like “oh, yeah obviously.” I don’t know how much I think lawful-neutral aliens would automatically respect boundaries, but I would be highly surprised if they didn’t at least include them as a term to be considered as they developed their coordination theories.
Your original comment said “How would one arrive at a value system that supports the latter but rejects the former?”, Vlad said (paraphrased) “by invoking boundaries as a concept”. If that doesn’t make sense to you, okay, but, while I agree Critch doesn’t quite argue for the concept’s applicability, I do think he lays out a bunch of concepts and how they could relate, and this should at least be an existence proof for “it is possible to develop a theory that accomplishes the “care about allowing the continued survival of existing things without wanting to create more.” And I still don’t think it makes sense to summarize this as a “personal opinion.” It’s a framework, you can buy the framework or not.
… Vlad said (paraphrased) “by invoking boundaries as a concept”. If that doesn’t make sense to you, okay, but, while I agree Critch doesn’t quite argue for the concept’s applicability, I do think he lays out a bunch of concepts and how they could relate, and this should at least be an existence proof for “it is possible to develop a theory that accomplishes the “care about allowing the continued survival of existing things without wanting to create more.”
I appreciate the update. The actual meaning behind “invoking boundaries as a concept” is what I’m interested in, if that is the right paraphrase.
If it made intuitive sense then the question wouldn’t have been asked, so your right that the concepts could relate but the crux is that this has not been proven to any degree. Thus, I’m still inclined to consider it a personal opinion.
For the latter part, I don’t get the meaning, from what I understand there’s no such ‘should at least be an existence proof’.
Why do you need more than one description of such a value system in order to answer your original question? This isn’t about arguing the value system is ideal or that you should adopt it.
And, like, respecting boundaries is a pretty mainstream concept lots of people care about.
Why do you need more than one description of such a value system in order to answer your original question?
I don’t think I am asking for multiple descriptions of ‘such a value system’.
What value system are you referring to and where does it appear I’m asking that?
Also, I’m not quite sure how ‘respecting boundaries’ relates to this discussion, is it something to do with the idea of ‘invoking boundaries as a concept’?
I think upon reflection I maybe agree that there isn’t exactly an “argument” here – I think most of what Critch is doing is saying “here is a frame of how to think about a lot of game theoretic stuff.” He doesn’t (much) argue for that frame, but he lays out how it works, shows a bunch of examples, and basically is hoping (at this point) that the examples resonate.”
(I haven’t reread the whole sequence in detail but that was actually my recollection of it last time I read it)
So, I’ll retract my particular phrasing here.
I do think that intuitively, boundaries exist, and as soon as they are pointed out as a frame that’d be good to formalize and incorporate into game/decision theory, I’m like “oh, yeah obviously.” I don’t know how much I think lawful-neutral aliens would automatically respect boundaries, but I would be highly surprised if they didn’t at least include them as a term to be considered as they developed their coordination theories.
Your original comment said “How would one arrive at a value system that supports the latter but rejects the former?”, Vlad said (paraphrased) “by invoking boundaries as a concept”. If that doesn’t make sense to you, okay, but, while I agree Critch doesn’t quite argue for the concept’s applicability, I do think he lays out a bunch of concepts and how they could relate, and this should at least be an existence proof for “it is possible to develop a theory that accomplishes the “care about allowing the continued survival of existing things without wanting to create more.” And I still don’t think it makes sense to summarize this as a “personal opinion.” It’s a framework, you can buy the framework or not.
I appreciate the update. The actual meaning behind “invoking boundaries as a concept” is what I’m interested in, if that is the right paraphrase.
If it made intuitive sense then the question wouldn’t have been asked, so your right that the concepts could relate but the crux is that this has not been proven to any degree. Thus, I’m still inclined to consider it a personal opinion.
For the latter part, I don’t get the meaning, from what I understand there’s no such ‘should at least be an existence proof’.
There’s ‘proven correct’, ‘proven incorrect’, ‘unproven’, ‘conjecture’, ‘hypothesis’, etc...
Why do you need more than one description of such a value system in order to answer your original question? This isn’t about arguing the value system is ideal or that you should adopt it.
And, like, respecting boundaries is a pretty mainstream concept lots of people care about.
I don’t think I am asking for multiple descriptions of ‘such a value system’.
What value system are you referring to and where does it appear I’m asking that?
Also, I’m not quite sure how ‘respecting boundaries’ relates to this discussion, is it something to do with the idea of ‘invoking boundaries as a concept’?