On 7/19/06, David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> Dan Minette wrote:
>> So, I don't think it is helpful to make arguments based on one's own
>> axiom set and then expect them to sound "reasonable" to someone who
>> holds a different axiom set.
>>
> Or we can hold "all" sets of axioms, assign a prior probability
> to each of them, then apply Bayesian analysis with real world
> examples and get a posteriori probability for each sets. And
> then decide based on some conservative criterium, like "do not
> kill if it's murder with 5% or more probability".
>
> Alberto Monteiro
Alberto--
Interesting, but there might be some obstacles. There are
an infinite number of axiom sets based on the pronouncements
of gods. I imagine that we would have some difficulty
agreeing on what probability to assign them. : )
(The obvious solution is to assign all gods probability
zero, but that too might prove unpopular...)
---David
I think having them cancel out would be a better idea. We could
formalize each god as "really" being a infinite series of ethical
axioms (covering every possible action), each of which says to do or
do not a specific something; with an infinite number of gods, every
possible binary string of axioms will be represented, but each one
will cancel out (since if we have one god with YYYNNN...., we *know*
there is another with NNNYYY....) with another god's string. I suspect
we need not worry about one string "outvoting" another string, since
subsets of the infinite-gods set could themselves be infinite?
~maru
we can clearly through a simple diagonal argument along the lines of
cantor that the number of angels is uncountable, and thus the number
of angels that can dance on the head of a pin is the same number as
the number of real numbers...
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
