**From:** Peter de Blanc (*peter@spaceandgames.com*)

**Date:** Thu Dec 04 2008 - 06:58:42 MST

**Next message:**Warrigal: "[sl4] JOIN: Hello, etc."**Previous message:**Stuart Armstrong: "Re: [sl4] How to imprint rules (re:AI's behaving badly)"**In reply to:**Joshua Fox: "Re: [sl4] Convergence of Expected Utilities with Algorithmic Probability Distributions - uh?"**Next in thread:**Joshua Fox: "Re: [sl4] Convergence of Expected Utilities with Algorithmic Probability Distributions - uh?"**Reply:**Joshua Fox: "Re: [sl4] Convergence of Expected Utilities with Algorithmic Probability Distributions - uh?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Joshua Fox wrote:

*> In fact, De Blanc says (to simplify greatly), your utility function
*

*> must be bounded from above.
*

From below, too.

The paper is built on some powerful (big) assumptions:

1. You consider all computer programs as possible descriptions of the

universe.

2. You have a utility function which is computably determined by your

perceptions.

I think (1) is fine (but Eli has objected to it), but (2) seems dubious

to me.

- Peter de Blanc

**Next message:**Warrigal: "[sl4] JOIN: Hello, etc."**Previous message:**Stuart Armstrong: "Re: [sl4] How to imprint rules (re:AI's behaving badly)"**In reply to:**Joshua Fox: "Re: [sl4] Convergence of Expected Utilities with Algorithmic Probability Distributions - uh?"**Next in thread:**Joshua Fox: "Re: [sl4] Convergence of Expected Utilities with Algorithmic Probability Distributions - uh?"**Reply:**Joshua Fox: "Re: [sl4] Convergence of Expected Utilities with Algorithmic Probability Distributions - uh?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:03 MDT
*