4 ms·

Unless you believe something like the Banach-Tarski paradox [0] is possible in our world, there is a relatively constant amount of matter within our reach. (In

Unless you believe something like the Banach-Tarski paradox [0] is possible in our world, there is a relatively constant amount of matter within our reach. (In fact, there is a finite amount of matter that we will ever be able to reach.) This puts a hard cap on how much "stuff" can exist. Therefore, the pie is fixed. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
I think most of us don't define "pie" that way. In particular, I (and, I presume, saulrh) were talking about the economy, not about the total amount of matter within reach of the human race. Even using your definition, though, the pie is not fixed. We can't mine the moon today. Perhaps someday we can. If so, the amount of matter available to us is not fixed. Or perhaps we can mine the earth's core. More mundanely, there's fracking. That's dramatically added to the amount of matter (of a particular useful form) that is available to the human race.
- saulrh 11y ago
  I wasn't even defining it economically, although that's one very concrete way this mentality appears. It also appears in discussions of civil rights, in everyday social interactions, and even when people are offered sterilized game-theoretic experiments. It's a depressingly general pattern.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  >I (and, I presume, saulrh) were talking about the economy So am I. What is "the economy"? I submit that it is the tracking of material in space. There is a fixed amount of space on the planet as well. At some point, there will be no more space or material to place another Hearst Castle. I guess someone should provide an example of an "entire new pie". (Interestingly, this is what I demanded in my first post.) My theory even explains your observation that 'People will complain about who got "more than their fair share" of the new pie'. The reason they complain is because the pie is fixed and the new pie is a lie. If we could just create "entire new pies", then there would be no reason to complain about the newest pie, because we can just create yet another entire new pie.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    See, you're talking about the fundamental limits of the economy (or the human environment), and the rest of us aren't. We're talking about the economy this year vs the economy last year (or next year). We aren't anywhere near the fundamental limits of the amount of material, or the amount of space. Therefore, what the rest of us mean by "the economy" has plenty of room to grow. And that's where "the new pie" comes from - it's the growth in the actual economy as experienced by actual humans participating in it, not growth in the fundamental limits of the economy. There are (probably) fundamental limits to the economy. That's a different topic than the one the rest of us are talking about, though. You keep using the same words ("pie", "economy") to talk about something different, and then you argue that we're wrong. It's tiresome, and also not useful for actual communication.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      My first post here was very simple. Someone needs to show an actual "entire new pie". No one here has done that yet. They have only said that my idea of "entire new pie" is incorrect (while couching that it is actually probably correct). How can I know the difference between my meaning and yours if you are unable to produce an instance of what you are talking about? >There are (probably) fundamental limits to the economy. That's a different topic than the one the rest of us are talking about, though. The topic you are all talking about is subsumed by the more fundamental limits (saulrh even explicitly referred to this in their OP). If there are limits, then there is a notion of fairness. The original premise of saulrh's argument was that "fairness" wasn't useful because the pie is not fixed (even though it is incorrectly [according to saulrh's OP] perceived to be). I also think that there may not only be universal (or inter-universal [or other])) limits, but there may be local limits as well. For instance, once I create an entire new pie, where does it go? It would need to displace some thing, even if it's just atmospheric molecules.
      - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        > How can I know the difference between my meaning and yours if you are unable to produce an instance of what you are talking about? Take the US economy of 1900 as "the pie". The US economy as of 2015 is more than double that, even after accounting for inflation and population growth. That is what the rest of us are talking about when we say "an entire new pie". As for the rest, you seem to be deliberately (and needlessly) nitpicky and argumentative, and I'm done with this conversation.
saulrh 11y ago
If you define "pie" as a physical chunk of matter under an implied laundry list of restrictions, maaaaaaybe. If you define "pie" as real wealth, then it becomes effectively unbounded; see fractional-reserve banking for a real-world example. If you define "pie" as value of your personal rational utility function, you get a much nicer - which is to say, much less bounded - result. I don't exactly think that Banach-Tarski Banach-Tarski is directly possible, but it's almost certain that our minds are in a region of the state space of all possible minds that is also mapped to by simulated brains with vastly greater measure than all brains existing in universes ex nihilo (for more exploration on this topic please consult Permutation City by Greg Egan and then chapters 2+ of The Finale of the Ultimate Meta Mega Crossover by Eliezer Yudkowsky). Which extends to Tegmark's Mathematical Universe hypothesis, which defines (and I do mean defines, in a constructive sense) uncountably infinite universes implying uncountably infinite versions of indistinguishable-from-me (as far as I know, see previous) that are simulated in universes which have unbounded quantities of utilitronium.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  I haven't read Permutation City yet, but it's on my list. I haven't heard of the other book, but I'll be looking into it. Thank you for the suggestion. Multiple universes may just be an artifact of our math. For instance, Inter-universal Teichmuller Theory may provide or point to a resolution. Ultimately, the economy is measured in "units moved", which is ultimately tied to the amount of "units" available in the entire system.
  - Eliezer 11y ago
    > Inter-universal Teichmuller Theory That's not even close to being what that math is about.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      Care to expand? Do you know of a physical theory that would not be affected by new results in number theory? That is, a refutable, physical theory that is not based at all on integers?

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

I think most of us don't define "pie" that way. In particular, I (and, I presume, saulrh) were talking about the economy, not about the total amount of matter within reach of the human race. Even using your definition, though, the pie is not fixed. We can't mine the moon today. Perhaps someday we can. If so, the amount of matter available to us is not fixed. Or perhaps we can mine the earth's core. More mundanely, there's fracking. That's dramatically added to the amount of matter (of a particular useful form) that is available to the human race.

saulrh 11y ago
I wasn't even defining it economically, although that's one very concrete way this mentality appears. It also appears in discussions of civil rights, in everyday social interactions, and even when people are offered sterilized game-theoretic experiments. It's a depressingly general pattern.
jsprogrammer 11y ago
>I (and, I presume, saulrh) were talking about the economy So am I. What is "the economy"? I submit that it is the tracking of material in space. There is a fixed amount of space on the planet as well. At some point, there will be no more space or material to place another Hearst Castle. I guess someone should provide an example of an "entire new pie". (Interestingly, this is what I demanded in my first post.) My theory even explains your observation that 'People will complain about who got "more than their fair share" of the new pie'. The reason they complain is because the pie is fixed and the new pie is a lie. If we could just create "entire new pies", then there would be no reason to complain about the newest pie, because we can just create yet another entire new pie.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  See, you're talking about the fundamental limits of the economy (or the human environment), and the rest of us aren't. We're talking about the economy this year vs the economy last year (or next year). We aren't anywhere near the fundamental limits of the amount of material, or the amount of space. Therefore, what the rest of us mean by "the economy" has plenty of room to grow. And that's where "the new pie" comes from - it's the growth in the actual economy as experienced by actual humans participating in it, not growth in the fundamental limits of the economy. There are (probably) fundamental limits to the economy. That's a different topic than the one the rest of us are talking about, though. You keep using the same words ("pie", "economy") to talk about something different, and then you argue that we're wrong. It's tiresome, and also not useful for actual communication.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    My first post here was very simple. Someone needs to show an actual "entire new pie". No one here has done that yet. They have only said that my idea of "entire new pie" is incorrect (while couching that it is actually probably correct). How can I know the difference between my meaning and yours if you are unable to produce an instance of what you are talking about? >There are (probably) fundamental limits to the economy. That's a different topic than the one the rest of us are talking about, though. The topic you are all talking about is subsumed by the more fundamental limits (saulrh even explicitly referred to this in their OP). If there are limits, then there is a notion of fairness. The original premise of saulrh's argument was that "fairness" wasn't useful because the pie is not fixed (even though it is incorrectly [according to saulrh's OP] perceived to be). I also think that there may not only be universal (or inter-universal [or other])) limits, but there may be local limits as well. For instance, once I create an entire new pie, where does it go? It would need to displace some thing, even if it's just atmospheric molecules.
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      > How can I know the difference between my meaning and yours if you are unable to produce an instance of what you are talking about? Take the US economy of 1900 as "the pie". The US economy as of 2015 is more than double that, even after accounting for inflation and population growth. That is what the rest of us are talking about when we say "an entire new pie". As for the rest, you seem to be deliberately (and needlessly) nitpicky and argumentative, and I'm done with this conversation.

saulrh 11y ago

If you define "pie" as a physical chunk of matter under an implied laundry list of restrictions, maaaaaaybe. If you define "pie" as real wealth, then it becomes effectively unbounded; see fractional-reserve banking for a real-world example. If you define "pie" as value of your personal rational utility function, you get a much nicer - which is to say, much less bounded - result. I don't exactly think that Banach-Tarski Banach-Tarski is directly possible, but it's almost certain that our minds are in a region of the state space of all possible minds that is also mapped to by simulated brains with vastly greater measure than all brains existing in universes ex nihilo (for more exploration on this topic please consult Permutation City by Greg Egan and then chapters 2+ of The Finale of the Ultimate Meta Mega Crossover by Eliezer Yudkowsky). Which extends to Tegmark's Mathematical Universe hypothesis, which defines (and I do mean defines, in a constructive sense) uncountably infinite universes implying uncountably infinite versions of indistinguishable-from-me (as far as I know, see previous) that are simulated in universes which have unbounded quantities of utilitronium.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
I haven't read Permutation City yet, but it's on my list. I haven't heard of the other book, but I'll be looking into it. Thank you for the suggestion. Multiple universes may just be an artifact of our math. For instance, Inter-universal Teichmuller Theory may provide or point to a resolution. Ultimately, the economy is measured in "units moved", which is ultimately tied to the amount of "units" available in the entire system.
- Eliezer 11y ago
  > Inter-universal Teichmuller Theory That's not even close to being what that math is about.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    Care to expand? Do you know of a physical theory that would not be affected by new results in number theory? That is, a refutable, physical theory that is not based at all on integers?