‘Necessity of Physical Representation’ refers to the notion that ultimately, a proper theory of value must compile to physics. We are made from physical stuff, and everything we interact with and value is made from the same physical stuff, and so ethics ultimately is about how to move & arrange the physical stuff in our light-cone. If a theory of value does not operate at this level, it can’t be a final theory of value. See e.g., Tegmark’s argument here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0813
Within the “Value Theory” section, I’d propose two subpoints:
Unity of Value Thesis
Necessity of Physical Representation
The ‘Unity of Value Thesis’ is simply what we get if the Complexity of Value Thesis is wrong. And it could be wrong- we just don’t know. For what this could look like, see e.g. https://qualiacomputing.com/2016/11/19/the-tyranny-of-the-intentional-object/
‘Necessity of Physical Representation’ refers to the notion that ultimately, a proper theory of value must compile to physics. We are made from physical stuff, and everything we interact with and value is made from the same physical stuff, and so ethics ultimately is about how to move & arrange the physical stuff in our light-cone. If a theory of value does not operate at this level, it can’t be a final theory of value. See e.g., Tegmark’s argument here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0813