I think torture v. dust specks and similar problems can be illuminated by flipping them around and examining them from the perspective of the potential victims. Given a choice between getting a dust speck in the eye with probability 1 or a 1-in-3^^^^^3 chance of being tortured, I suspect the vast majority of individuals will actually opt for the dust speck, and I don’t think this is just insensitivity to the scope of 3^^^^^3. Dust specks are such a trivial inconvenience that people generally don’t choose to do any of the easy things they could do to minimize the chances of getting one (e.g. regularly dusting their environment, wearing goggles, etc.) On the other hand, most people would do anything to stop being tortured, up to and including suicide if the torture has no apparent end point. The difference here is arguably not expressible as a finite number.
FWIW, I would take the 1 in 3^^^^^3 chance of torture over a single dust speck*, but I would give 3^^^^^3 people a dust speck each than subject one person to torture, because the world with the dust specks looks nicer to me than the world with the torture. (I find fairness to be aesthetically pleasant.)
* Though since I feel like being pedantic, the—irrational—momentary anxiety of rolling the torture die would be a worse feeling than a dust speck, which in practice would make the dust speck the better choice.
We have eyelashes, blink a lot, have reflex actions to shield our eyes, and will quickly stop all activity around us because “I got something in my eye.”
And 1-in-3^^^^^3 odds are so trivial as to never happen within the lifetime of this universe or many such universes, so I think it is indeed scope insensitivity.
I am just rephrasing the original torture v. dust specks problem. We have already established that exactly 1 individual in some universe somewhere will being tortured. The odds of that individual being you are greater-than-astronomical but that is not the same as “will never happen.”
The odds of that individual being you are greater-than-astronomical but that is not the same as “will never happen.”
Yes, it’s vastly less probable than things that merely “will never happen.” It’s far more likely that you spontaneously turn into chocolate raspberry ice cream and are eaten by a pink Yeti who happens to be Miss New South Wales.
Would you like to be dust specked in exchange for a reduction in the base rate of that specific thing happening to you in the next second by one part in a trillion? It’s a much better deal than the torture offer.
Trying again here, as I’m not sure I expressed myself well in the previous attempt. The original problem is that you either torture one person or give 3^^^^^3 people dust specks. For purposes of this thought experiment, therefore, we must assume that there exist at least 3^^^^^3 people in some number of universes. So if you asked each and every one of them the formulation I offered in the grandparent, and they all chose the chance of torture based on your reasoning, exactly one of those people would be in for a very unpleasant surprise.
Also, the probability of the torture is greater than the probability of spontaneously converting into a frozen treat for an improbably attractive sasquatch, since we have no reason whatsoever to expect that there is anything that could cause the latter, but we have already taken as a given that there is some individual in the multiverse with the capacity to choose to inflict torture or dust specks.
[Edited] to correct the numbers to be of identical powers.
The original problem is that you either torture one person or give 3^^^^^3 people dust specks. For purposes of this thought experiment, therefore, we must assume that there exist at least 3^^^^^^3 people in some number of universes.
3^^^^^^3? Do you know the difference between 3^^^^^^3 and 3^^^^^3? Compare the size of an electron and the size of the entire universe. Then forget that because that doesn’t come close to demonstrating it. This means that the fact that you said the original problem is about 3^^^^^3 when it is actually about a mere 3^^^3 is a relatively minor error.
That you are so willing to jump from 3^^^3 to 3^^^^^^3 in the same conversation suggest you don’t really grasp the point here. The amount of people experiencing discomfort really does make a difference. There is an unimaginable amount of pain at stake.
and I don’t think this is just insensitivity to the scope of 3^^^^^3.
Nope, unless they have an arbitrary discontinuity in their valuation of harm it’s really just scope insensitivy, 3^^^^^3 is that big. Quibbling about a few orders of magnitude of their caring about dust specks (“dust specks” just means the smallest harm they care about at all) and torture is a waste of time, they could consider torture a billion times worse than they do and it wouldn’t change anything.
It’s another matter to volunteer to be dust-specked to save someone from torture, the personal satisfaction from having done so might very well outweigh the inconvenience. But if you choose for them and they never learn about it they don’t get that satisfaction.
Given a choice between getting a dust speck in the eye with probability 1 or a 1-in-3^^^^^3 chance of being tortured, I suspect the vast majority of individuals will actually opt for the dust speck, and I don’t think this is just insensitivity to the scope of 3^^^^^3.
I think it is. Imagine that the same trade is offered you a trillion times. Or imagine that it’s automatically offered or rejected (unconsciously by default, but you have the ability to change the default) every second of your life.
After spending a week getting a dust speck in the eye every single second, I think you’ll do the math and opt to be choosing the 1-in-3^^^^^3 chance of torture instead.
After spending a week getting a dust speck in the eye every single second, I think you’ll do the math and opt to be choosing the 1-in-3^^^^^3 chance of torture instead.
That is an entirely different scenario than what Prismattic is describing. In fact, a dust speck in the eye every single second would be an extremely effective form of torture.
Indeed. More abstractly: pleasure and suffering aren’t so nice as to neatly add and multiply like pretty little scalars.
Even if you wish to talk about “utils/utilons”—it is by no means obvious that ten dust specks are worth exactly ten times as many (negative) utils as one dust speck.
Getting a dust speck for a moment is a minor nuisance. Getting an uninterrupted series of dust specks forever is torture. It’s not a particularly invasive form, but it is debilitating.
He was trying to show the difference between something which actually happens and has an effect versus something which will only happen with a 1-in-3^^^^^3 chance: one exists in this universe, the other does not.
If we changed it to be one dust speck per second and a 1-in-3^^^^^3 chance every second that you are quantum teleported to a random planet in the universe, you’d swallow that planet in the ever-expanding black hole you’d become long, long before you’re teleported there.
Okay, what about a dust speck per hour or a dust speck per ten minutes. Still a minor nuisance, but has it reached to the point you’d prefer to have a 1-in-3^^^^^3 chance of being tortured?
I think torture v. dust specks and similar problems can be illuminated by flipping them around and examining them from the perspective of the potential victims. Given a choice between getting a dust speck in the eye with probability 1 or a 1-in-3^^^^^3 chance of being tortured, I suspect the vast majority of individuals will actually opt for the dust speck, and I don’t think this is just insensitivity to the scope of 3^^^^^3. Dust specks are such a trivial inconvenience that people generally don’t choose to do any of the easy things they could do to minimize the chances of getting one (e.g. regularly dusting their environment, wearing goggles, etc.) On the other hand, most people would do anything to stop being tortured, up to and including suicide if the torture has no apparent end point. The difference here is arguably not expressible as a finite number.
Pardon me, I have to go flush my cornea.
FWIW, I would take the 1 in 3^^^^^3 chance of torture over a single dust speck*, but I would give 3^^^^^3 people a dust speck each than subject one person to torture, because the world with the dust specks looks nicer to me than the world with the torture. (I find fairness to be aesthetically pleasant.)
* Though since I feel like being pedantic, the—irrational—momentary anxiety of rolling the torture die would be a worse feeling than a dust speck, which in practice would make the dust speck the better choice.
That’s not a world with dust specks, that’s millions upon millions of universes cycling endlessly of dust specks.
We have eyelashes, blink a lot, have reflex actions to shield our eyes, and will quickly stop all activity around us because “I got something in my eye.”
And 1-in-3^^^^^3 odds are so trivial as to never happen within the lifetime of this universe or many such universes, so I think it is indeed scope insensitivity.
Yup. To get on the right scope, I would look at it as a choice between getting a dust speck in my eye or not getting a dust speck in my eye.
I am just rephrasing the original torture v. dust specks problem. We have already established that exactly 1 individual in some universe somewhere will being tortured. The odds of that individual being you are greater-than-astronomical but that is not the same as “will never happen.”
Why would people only accept “zero probability”, considering zero is not a probability?
Yes, it’s vastly less probable than things that merely “will never happen.” It’s far more likely that you spontaneously turn into chocolate raspberry ice cream and are eaten by a pink Yeti who happens to be Miss New South Wales.
Would you like to be dust specked in exchange for a reduction in the base rate of that specific thing happening to you in the next second by one part in a trillion? It’s a much better deal than the torture offer.
Trying again here, as I’m not sure I expressed myself well in the previous attempt. The original problem is that you either torture one person or give 3^^^^^3 people dust specks. For purposes of this thought experiment, therefore, we must assume that there exist at least 3^^^^^3 people in some number of universes. So if you asked each and every one of them the formulation I offered in the grandparent, and they all chose the chance of torture based on your reasoning, exactly one of those people would be in for a very unpleasant surprise.
Also, the probability of the torture is greater than the probability of spontaneously converting into a frozen treat for an improbably attractive sasquatch, since we have no reason whatsoever to expect that there is anything that could cause the latter, but we have already taken as a given that there is some individual in the multiverse with the capacity to choose to inflict torture or dust specks.
[Edited] to correct the numbers to be of identical powers.
3^^^^^^3? Do you know the difference between 3^^^^^^3 and 3^^^^^3? Compare the size of an electron and the size of the entire universe. Then forget that because that doesn’t come close to demonstrating it. This means that the fact that you said the original problem is about 3^^^^^3 when it is actually about a mere 3^^^3 is a relatively minor error.
That you are so willing to jump from 3^^^3 to 3^^^^^^3 in the same conversation suggest you don’t really grasp the point here. The amount of people experiencing discomfort really does make a difference. There is an unimaginable amount of pain at stake.
The sixth carrot in 3^^^^^^3 was a typo, which I am correcting.
And “carrot”?
The name of the grammatical symbol “^” is a carrot, as far as I know.
caret =/= Carrot](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Duly noted. On reflection, I’ve never actually seen it spelled out before.
You do not seem to understand how large 3^^^^^3 is.
1 in 3^^^^^3 is a really, really, really, really, really, really accurate specification of 0.
Nope, unless they have an arbitrary discontinuity in their valuation of harm it’s really just scope insensitivy, 3^^^^^3 is that big. Quibbling about a few orders of magnitude of their caring about dust specks (“dust specks” just means the smallest harm they care about at all) and torture is a waste of time, they could consider torture a billion times worse than they do and it wouldn’t change anything.
It’s another matter to volunteer to be dust-specked to save someone from torture, the personal satisfaction from having done so might very well outweigh the inconvenience. But if you choose for them and they never learn about it they don’t get that satisfaction.
And yet we don’t give Pascal’s mugger the 10 bucks.
I think it is. Imagine that the same trade is offered you a trillion times. Or imagine that it’s automatically offered or rejected (unconsciously by default, but you have the ability to change the default) every second of your life.
After spending a week getting a dust speck in the eye every single second, I think you’ll do the math and opt to be choosing the 1-in-3^^^^^3 chance of torture instead.
That is an entirely different scenario than what Prismattic is describing. In fact, a dust speck in the eye every single second would be an extremely effective form of torture.
Indeed. More abstractly: pleasure and suffering aren’t so nice as to neatly add and multiply like pretty little scalars.
Even if you wish to talk about “utils/utilons”—it is by no means obvious that ten dust specks are worth exactly ten times as many (negative) utils as one dust speck.
Getting a dust speck for a moment is a minor nuisance. Getting an uninterrupted series of dust specks forever is torture. It’s not a particularly invasive form, but it is debilitating.
He was trying to show the difference between something which actually happens and has an effect versus something which will only happen with a 1-in-3^^^^^3 chance: one exists in this universe, the other does not.
If we changed it to be one dust speck per second and a 1-in-3^^^^^3 chance every second that you are quantum teleported to a random planet in the universe, you’d swallow that planet in the ever-expanding black hole you’d become long, long before you’re teleported there.
Okay, what about a dust speck per hour or a dust speck per ten minutes. Still a minor nuisance, but has it reached to the point you’d prefer to have a 1-in-3^^^^^3 chance of being tortured?