I think that particular number makes the argument harder to understand, since I’m not sure what it would even mean to pay such an amount. Should I postulate that we have colonized the entire observable universe and I’m the supreme ruler of the universe, thereby allowing for the possibility of such a sum even existing, let alone me having the opportunity to pay it?
Should I postulate that we have colonized the entire observable universe and I’m the supreme ruler of the universe, thereby allowing for the possibility of such a sum even existing...
Not to beat a dead horse, but $(3^^^3/100) is way way way way way way way way way more money than you could spend if you merely colonized the universe with trillionaires the size of quarks.
I thought of it like this: Well, I wouldn’t even pay one trillion dollars, so surely I wouldn’t pay $(3^^^3/100). Given that paying $(3^^^3/100) is the logical consequence of choosing “torture” in “torture vs. shampoo”, I clearly must not pick “torture”.
Yeah, I did arrive at something similar after a moment’s thought, but an example that the reader needs to explicitly transform into a different one (“okay, that number makes no sense, but the same logic applies to smaller numbers that do make sense”) isn’t a very good example.
I think I tend to do things like that automatically, so it wasn’t a problem for me. But I can see why that would be a problem to other people who think differently, so I agree with you.
How do you disagree? I agree on both of those counts.
I’m suggesting ‘Shampoo in eyes vs. being slowly devoured alive by ants’ would be even more convincing to most people, especially if you used a dollar figure whose notation most people understand.
I disagree. I think Chris made the example more clear (using shampoo) and the argument more convincing for me (“you wouldn’t pay $(3^^^3/100).”)
I think that particular number makes the argument harder to understand, since I’m not sure what it would even mean to pay such an amount. Should I postulate that we have colonized the entire observable universe and I’m the supreme ruler of the universe, thereby allowing for the possibility of such a sum even existing, let alone me having the opportunity to pay it?
Not to beat a dead horse, but $(3^^^3/100) is way way way way way way way way way more money than you could spend if you merely colonized the universe with trillionaires the size of quarks.
I thought of it like this: Well, I wouldn’t even pay one trillion dollars, so surely I wouldn’t pay $(3^^^3/100). Given that paying $(3^^^3/100) is the logical consequence of choosing “torture” in “torture vs. shampoo”, I clearly must not pick “torture”.
Yeah, I did arrive at something similar after a moment’s thought, but an example that the reader needs to explicitly transform into a different one (“okay, that number makes no sense, but the same logic applies to smaller numbers that do make sense”) isn’t a very good example.
I think I tend to do things like that automatically, so it wasn’t a problem for me. But I can see why that would be a problem to other people who think differently, so I agree with you.
What number would you recommend?
How do you disagree? I agree on both of those counts.
I’m suggesting ‘Shampoo in eyes vs. being slowly devoured alive by ants’ would be even more convincing to most people, especially if you used a dollar figure whose notation most people understand.
On second thought, I don’t disagree.