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.

##
Advertising

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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---