3 ms·

> I think the issue is that people tend to round down "speck of dust" to 0, then multiply, then find of course any amount of torture isn't worth 0. Why not rou

by zyxley 12y ago

> I think the issue is that people tend to round down "speck of dust" to 0, then multiply, then find of course any amount of torture isn't worth 0. Why not round it down to 0? There's some level of discomfort in everyday life to start with that's effectively negligible for any normal person, simply because it's a prerequisite for interacting with the world (getting a raindrop in your eye, dealing with a minor wedgie, having an itchy nose, whatever).

MichaelGG 12y ago
If you round down before multiplying, then you get an invalid answer. First multiply it out. So in my example, torturing 7,625,597,484,987 people for 50 years, versus that many specks of dust for everyone else. (7 trillion is essentially 1, compared to 3^^^3, right?) 7 trillion specks of dust is enough to turn all those other lives into torture, as 7 trillion specks of dust is a few thousand a second, for a very long life. That's why you can't round down first. Eliezer's entire intent there is to illustrate that by default, we suck at scale, we're scope insensitive. Another way: If everyone in the US gave just a penny directly to a poor person, once in a lifetime, that person would be wealthy for life and be OK, right? A penny rounds down to zero, thus we can determine that the right action is to always give money directly to poor individuals, as this will cure poverty at a cost of nothing. You're right that if the only choice, ever, in the entire multiverse was this one 50 years or 3^^^3 specks of dust, then sure, you don't need to follow the rules/math. But we're never going to be faced with just a single decision. Instead, we should be consistent and follow the numbers to determine utility.
- zyxley 12y ago
  > If you round down before multiplying, then you get an invalid answer. Your argument here is based on the premise that the subjectively-inflicted-pain of "a whole lot of specks of dust in a person's eye" can be treated as a multiple of "one speck of dust in a person's eye", which to me is the point of absurdity that makes the whole thought exercise fall apart.
  - Houshalter 12y ago
    That's just basic utilitarianism. What exactly are you objecting to? That 2 dust specks in 2 people's eyes isn't exactly twice as bad as 1 dust speck?
    - zyxley 12y ago
      > What exactly are you objecting to? That some arbitrarily minimal amount of subjective pain can be presumed to be actually distinguishable from the general background unpleasantness of being human in the first place. Edit: Rephrased to remove gibberish resulting from temporary brain/keyboard disconnect.
      - Houshalter 12y ago
        It doesn't matter if it's "distinguishable". It's objectively worse. A pin prick might not be noticeable but a million is the worst torture imaginable.
        davidgerard 12y ago
        You're assuming that dust specks across different people can be added, and then asserting that as evidence that dust specks across different people can be added. The addition is ridiculous. Also, minmaxing is a thing.
      - zyxley 12y ago
        For some reason HN won't let me reply to Houshalter's post, but... > objectively How can pain be objective? The universe doesn't give a shit that some lumpy sacks of meat dislike certain experiences, and exactly the same action can be unpleasant for some people but pleasant for others. (BDSM enthusiasts, for example, often actively seek out experiences that other people would consider painful.)
        Houshalter 12y ago
        >How can pain be objective? Do you object that a pin prick is bad? Do you want to avoid being pricked?

by zyxley 12y ago

MichaelGG 12y ago

If you round down before multiplying, then you get an invalid answer. First multiply it out. So in my example, torturing 7,625,597,484,987 people for 50 years, versus that many specks of dust for everyone else. (7 trillion is essentially 1, compared to 3^^^3, right?) 7 trillion specks of dust is enough to turn all those other lives into torture, as 7 trillion specks of dust is a few thousand a second, for a very long life. That's why you can't round down first. Eliezer's entire intent there is to illustrate that by default, we suck at scale, we're scope insensitive. Another way: If everyone in the US gave just a penny directly to a poor person, once in a lifetime, that person would be wealthy for life and be OK, right? A penny rounds down to zero, thus we can determine that the right action is to always give money directly to poor individuals, as this will cure poverty at a cost of nothing. You're right that if the only choice, ever, in the entire multiverse was this one 50 years or 3^^^3 specks of dust, then sure, you don't need to follow the rules/math. But we're never going to be faced with just a single decision. Instead, we should be consistent and follow the numbers to determine utility.

zyxley 12y ago
> If you round down before multiplying, then you get an invalid answer. Your argument here is based on the premise that the subjectively-inflicted-pain of "a whole lot of specks of dust in a person's eye" can be treated as a multiple of "one speck of dust in a person's eye", which to me is the point of absurdity that makes the whole thought exercise fall apart.
- Houshalter 12y ago
  That's just basic utilitarianism. What exactly are you objecting to? That 2 dust specks in 2 people's eyes isn't exactly twice as bad as 1 dust speck?
  - zyxley 12y ago
    > What exactly are you objecting to? That some arbitrarily minimal amount of subjective pain can be presumed to be actually distinguishable from the general background unpleasantness of being human in the first place. Edit: Rephrased to remove gibberish resulting from temporary brain/keyboard disconnect.
    - Houshalter 12y ago
      It doesn't matter if it's "distinguishable". It's objectively worse. A pin prick might not be noticeable but a million is the worst torture imaginable.
      - davidgerard 12y ago
        You're assuming that dust specks across different people can be added, and then asserting that as evidence that dust specks across different people can be added. The addition is ridiculous. Also, minmaxing is a thing.
    - zyxley 12y ago
      For some reason HN won't let me reply to Houshalter's post, but... > objectively How can pain be objective? The universe doesn't give a shit that some lumpy sacks of meat dislike certain experiences, and exactly the same action can be unpleasant for some people but pleasant for others. (BDSM enthusiasts, for example, often actively seek out experiences that other people would consider painful.)
      - Houshalter 12y ago
        >How can pain be objective? Do you object that a pin prick is bad? Do you want to avoid being pricked?