Wei, your examples are convincing, although other decision models have similar problems. If your two examples were the only problems that UDASSA had, I would have few qualms about adopting it over the other decision models I've seen. Note that even if you adopt a decision model, you still in practice (as a human being) can keep an all- purpose "escape hatch" where you can go against your formal model if there are edge cases where you dislike its results.
In other words, I would prioritize "UDASSA doesn't yet make many falsifiable predictions" and "We don't see a total ordering of points in spacetime, so UDASSA probably doesn't run on a typical Turing Machine" as larger problems. But sure, if UDASSA can be improved to solve the morality edge-cases that you gave, I'm all for the improvements. As far as our observations of the Universe, I don't quite follow: how can you go from "in terms of morality, probability is imperfect" to "there's no such thing as probability, therefore there's no measure problem?" --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---