Jack, You say "Q_i (which is _your_ utility per unit measure for the observer i)." This is an oxymoron. How can observer i know or care what YOUR Q (Quality) is? How can this observer feel what it feels being you?. The only observer that matters in evaluating your Q is you as a self-observer. The sum is no sum at all:
U = M_o Q_o where o = you as observer. George Wei Dai wrote: > Jack Mallah wrote: > >> They might not, but I'm sure most would; maybe not exactly that U, but a >> lot closer to it. >> > > Can you explain why you believe that? > > >> No. In U = Sum_i M_i Q_i, you sum over all the i's, not just the ones >> that are similar to you. Of course your Q_i (which is _your_ utility per >> unit measure for the observer i) might be highly peaked around those that >> are similar to you, but there's no need for a precise cutoff in >> similarity. And it's even very likely that it will have even higher peaks >> around people that are not very much like you at all (these are the people >> that you would sacrifice yourself for). >> >> By contrast, in your proposal for U, you do need a precise cutoff, for >> which there is no justification. >> > > Ok, I see what you're saying, and it is a good point. But most people > already have a personal identity that is sufficiently well-defined in the > current environment where mind copying is not possible, so in practice > deciding which i's to sum over isn't a serious problem (yet). > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
