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

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

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 

Reply via email to