Rolf Nelson wrote:
> In standard decision theory, "odds" (subjective probabilities) are
> separated from utilities. Is "how much you care about the consequences
> of your actions" isomorphic to "odds", or is there some subtlety I'm
> missing here?

Your question shows that someone finally understand what I've been trying to 
say, I think.

"how much you care about the consequences of your actions" is almost 
isomorphic to "odds", except that I've found a couple of cases where 
thinking in terms of the former works (i.e. delivers intuitive results) 
whereas the latter doesn't. The first I described in "against UD+ASSA, part 
1" at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/dd21cbec7063215b.

The second one is, what if your preferences for two universes are not 
independent? For example, suppose you have the following preferences, from 
most preferred to least preferred:

1) eat an apple in universe A and eat an orange in universe B
2) eat an orange in universe A and eat an apple in universe B
3) eat an apple in both universes
4) eat an orange in both universes

I don't see why this kind of preference must be irrational if you believe 
that both A and B exists. But in standard decision theory, this kind of 
preference is not allowed.

To put it more generally, thinking in terms of "how much you care about the 
consequences of your actions" *allows* you to have an overall preference 
about A and B that can be expressed as an expected utility:

P(A) * U(A) + P(B) * U(B)

since P(A) and P(B) can denote how much you care about universes A and B, 
but it doesn't *force* you to have a preference of this form. Standard 
decision theory does force you to.

> One thing unclear is whether you're advocating "moral relativism", or
> whether you simply want an "escape clause" in your formal decision
> theory so that if you don't like what your decision theory tells you
> to do, you can alter your decision theory on the spot on a case-by-
> case basis.

That's a very good question. I think if someone were to show me an objective 
decision procedure that actually makes sense, I think I would give up "moral 
relativism". But in the mean time, I don't see how to avoid these 
counterintuitive implications without it. 



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to