> No. First, I don't agree that the real question is what the utility > function is or should be. The real question is whether the measure, M, is > conserved or whether it decreases. It's just that a lot of people don't > understand what that means.

I agree that a lot of people don't understand what that means, and I certainly appreciate your effort to educate them. But it seems to me that once someone does understand that issue, it's not assured that they'll fall into the U=M*Q camp automatically. > The next point is that while U=M*Q is perfectly well defined, U=Q is not, > and I don't know what you mean by it. > > OK, you might ask "huh?" when I say that. What I mean is that M*Q is just > a caricature of a utility function but should obviously be generalized to > the case of multiple types of observations by using Sum_i M_i Q_i. U=Q would be generalized to (Sum_i M_i Q_i) / (Sum_i M_i). This seems just as well defined as Sum_i M_i Q_i. You objected that "personal identity is not well-defined" but don't you need to define personal identity to compute Sum_i M_i Q_i as well, in order to determine which i to sum over? BTW, I note that there seems to be a parallel between this debate, and the one between average and total utilitarianism. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---