A banana isn't going to banana harder because it is in your hand instead of mine.
You could take any mistake that is persistent and just think that the "revealed preferences" tell that they are actually gaining value by having that financial behaviour.
One needs some kind of assumption to bridge thinking that you benefit to actually benefitting. If you suddenly start to resist a advertisements effect you might realise that you are perfectly happy and content without some kind of experience or good. Does that reveal you were making an error or does it make it an error to continue to buy the product? If you manage to deceive someone to opt into a value-extracting deal does it mean they benefit from the deal? The beliefs about whether your experiece is improved need to be competent and they are capable of being incompetent.
It is possible to trade oneself to be bankcrypt.
You could have a worker that faced a situation that if we doesn't lower his pricer all the customers will go to the competitors. If people were completely farsighted and could factor in everything they would close shop immidietly. But it isn't unheard off to run an activity a little while with loss or run it by overworking oneself outside of ones capacity. There are uncertainties and closing and opening a shop isn't neccesarily frictionless. But that fricton can mask an area where activity is kept for inertias sake while actually being a little bit of burden.
Doing all the risk adjusments and opportunity costs and everything correctly is cognitively very challenging. Trusting that everybody does every decision always correctly might be handy for mathematical ideal land but for limited cognition agents it just means that everybody has a story how their deal makes sense. And like nobody is the villain of their story, everybody is the mastermind of their business. It doesn't mean that everybody is a saint or that all business is suistainable.
Any good that is "consumed" is in a state that has resale value of $0. If the ET game company made 35 billion it wouldn't have guaranteed that the product actually had any use value just that some people are willing to receive it by buying with that cash.
If I save 3 lifes and get $100 in compensation does that mean that a life is $33 in value? Human lives seem like they would have value outside of their exchanged value.
If there was a homo economicus that could choose between spending a day chopping down trees to get $1000 or spend a day saving 3 people and getting $100 the result would be that trees would get chopped and people would be left to die. This would to many seem like a tragic allocation of world affecting power. In order to compare whether market prices line up with our utility function satisfaction we need to be able to model the situation where the prices are not aligned. if one is able to recast the options in utilons that might resolve the problem. But then a strategy being homo economicus efficient doesn't tell whether the strategy is aligned with a value profile or not.
Doing service and getting paid well for it is a hint that it might not be totally frivolous but it is not staighforward to define that value via exchange. If somebody would do the same thing a google engineer did and didn't get any compensation for it it woud be just as valuable. Or a piece of code written as freeware or as proprietary software has comparble use value regardless of the cost associated with aquiring it.
Gaining an item worth $100 and losing $100 in cash is value neutral. If you buy one banana for 10 million dollars that doesn't make a banana 10 million worth to society.
Suppose that you write an ET game get paid for it. Your company sells the game to retailers. Turns out the game is utter trash and of no gameplay or cultural value. Retailers decide to dump the game cartidges under the ground as $0 worth items.
Under some definitions the game writer provided value to their company and the retailers destroyed value by finding a item they paid money to now be of worth 0.
By another definition nothing of value was created but some money transfer from retailers to game companies and game writers happened.
Having implicit closed timelike curves seems highly irregular. In such a setup it is doubtful whether stepping "advances" time.
That explains that the math works out. T gives each state a future but unintuitive part is that future is guaranteed to be among the events. Most regular scenarios are open towards the future ie have future edges where causation can run away from the region. One would expect for each event to have a cause and an effect but the cause of the pastest event to be outside of the region and the effect of the most future event to be outside of the region.
Having CTCs probably will not extend to any "types of dynamics that actually show up in physics"
The proof for constancy doens't compute for me. Sum of S(x) and S(Tx) have different amount of things to sum so it is not obvvious that they are equal. Say we have 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 10. Sum of S(x) is 20. the four first terms of sum of S(Tx) are 2,2,2,2. The fifth is 10. Then the sixth is ill defined as T(state 6) isn't really well defined. Even if T is more wider reaching then summing over x and Tx don't count the same terms (say that the bigger sequence is 0,0,0,0,2,2,2,2,2,10,40,50,60,70) x for every x is 2,2,2,2,2,10 and Tx for every x is 2,2,2,2,10,40). Those sums can clearly be different.
Isn't it kind of super essential that the master picks the activity for the student? That is the master can look what ia going on with the student and set himon a path that wil mess with their particular issues and circumstances. It would seem in comparison that in rationality side things are often taken so that a half-informed half-baked reasoner will do learing route decicions with their current understanding which would be equivalent for the zen student to choose whether they should in this phase do breathing exercises or not. And there seems to be the basdic issue that the kind of mind that needs or benefits from them can't for the same reasons understand why that is so.
A person that has ot practised will have a theorethical understanding of the process and will think of the requirements ideally. Doing stuff makes it clear that things don't need to be ideal for things to happen. Taking steps proves that steps are possible instead of dreading over how can one ever cross a gap with mere stepping.
I have gone to a phase where you let them come out and just don't count them.
However there was a thing where I was pretty strict on distincness on the listings. Looking at others they were pretty lax on how different each option should be. There were like 20-30 points on others lists that would just fall under
in my brain. (I kinda feel that this is risking pushing against norm not to draw negatives to creative activities but I am focusing on my own here).
One could argue that is a form of blockage. And it was harder to get to 100 while simultanously that every option is not any of the other options.
pyrokinesis and polymorph
one could argue should collapse in some sort of phantasy option.
And yet it feels like
use social pressures to get it done probably has a "umbrella option". Ask X, Sell X, demand X, intimidate X all seemof the formula Y X with social Y where variation of Y doesn't seem to make a fully distinct option. But it feels like my brain can't make that abstraction and somehow that fact makes it okay for them to be different.
probably has a "umbrella option".
Ask X, Sell X, demand X, intimidate X
all seemof the formula Y X with <property kind of interest> Y where variation of Y doesn't seem to make a fully distinct option. But it feels like my brain can't make that abstraction and somehow that fact makes it okay for them to be different.
A little like one could break down
"nuclear fuel" into "fission fuel" and "fusion fuel" and have specific elements for fission fuels.
A superficial understanding makes <them> two phenomena but deeper understanding makes it two aspects of a single thing. With <property of the Y kind> I haven't unified it yet.
I find it easier when I ask myself "is this distinct" that more nebuloous "is this good?" questions don't bother me as much. Or like rather than thinking in terms of "quilty or not quilty" you have "probable cause", "indictable", "beoynd resonable doubt". So instead of being "crap" and "good" ideas you have categories like "explorable", "inspiring", "route", "limit-case", "fashionable""