It’s just not an example of the phenomenon you are trying to illustrate at all! This should seem like an important consideration—because maintaining it as an example is undermining your post.
I’ll now add to the post what I thought was already implicitly clear, if quantum suicide would make sense then I wouldn’t do it.
It was clear, and clearly fallacious. “All X are False. For example, Y is false. If Y was an X then it would be false.” The only thing being exemplified is the phenomenon of the people who think logical conclusions being bad just being wrong about what logical conclusions are and the logical conclusions are fine.
Quantum suicide might not increase your expected utility and is therefore the wrong choice for an expected utility maximizer. Yet quantum suicide is being taken seriously by some people and it is a logical implication of an interpretation of quantum mechanics. That I wouldn’t suggest to follow through on it even given that it would maximize your expected utility seems to be a good example to highlight what I wanted to argue without talking about the forbidden topic: Discount implied utility of implications of logical implications of interpretations of data (but don’t ignore it).
Yet quantum suicide is being taken seriously by some people and it is a logical implication of an interpretation of quantum mechanics.
You are wrong about the logical implications.
That I wouldn’t suggest to follow through on it even given that it would maximize your expected utility seems to be a good example to highlight what I wanted to argue without talking about the forbidden topic:
I actually agree that it is a representative example of your thesis as you have advocated it in your post. The aforementioned observations that it is obviously fallacious and relies on being confused about what logical implications are and mean stand.
The aforementioned observations that it is obviously fallacious and relies on being confused about what logical implications are and mean stand.
wedrifid_level_obvious maybe but not universally obvious. Or do you accuse me of acting deliberately stupid?
What I mean by logical implications are mechanic inferences made from premises that were previously established to be reasonable inferences given the available evidence.
For example the established premises that gunshots to the head are often deadly and that those who die often leave behind mourning friends and family. You could continue to draw further inferences from those premises and establish the expected disutility of shooting someone in the head. But where do you draw the line here?
The impact of any decision does propagate causal ripples that may or may not be amplified. Just like the influence of the starship you launched will continue even if you can no longer interact with it.
It’s just not an example of the phenomenon you are trying to illustrate at all! This should seem like an important consideration—because maintaining it as an example is undermining your post.
It was clear, and clearly fallacious. “All X are False. For example, Y is false. If Y was an X then it would be false.” The only thing being exemplified is the phenomenon of the people who think logical conclusions being bad just being wrong about what logical conclusions are and the logical conclusions are fine.
Quantum suicide might not increase your expected utility and is therefore the wrong choice for an expected utility maximizer. Yet quantum suicide is being taken seriously by some people and it is a logical implication of an interpretation of quantum mechanics. That I wouldn’t suggest to follow through on it even given that it would maximize your expected utility seems to be a good example to highlight what I wanted to argue without talking about the forbidden topic: Discount implied utility of implications of logical implications of interpretations of data (but don’t ignore it).
You are wrong about the logical implications.
I actually agree that it is a representative example of your thesis as you have advocated it in your post. The aforementioned observations that it is obviously fallacious and relies on being confused about what logical implications are and mean stand.
wedrifid_level_obvious maybe but not universally obvious. Or do you accuse me of acting deliberately stupid?
What I mean by logical implications are mechanic inferences made from premises that were previously established to be reasonable inferences given the available evidence.
For example the established premises that gunshots to the head are often deadly and that those who die often leave behind mourning friends and family. You could continue to draw further inferences from those premises and establish the expected disutility of shooting someone in the head. But where do you draw the line here?
The impact of any decision does propagate causal ripples that may or may not be amplified. Just like the influence of the starship you launched will continue even if you can no longer interact with it.