If most of the value we can influence is in the far future
To be clear, you don’t necessarily assume this in the paper, and you don’t need to, right? You need bracketing to escape cluelessness paralysis, even if you merely think it’s indeterminate whether most of the value we can influence is in the far future, afaiu.
One could try to argue that the second-order effects of near-term interventions are negligible in expectation (see “the washing out hypothesis”). But I don’t think this is plausible.
So even if this were plausible (as Vasco thinks, for instance), this wouldn’t be enough to think we don’t need bracketing. One would need to have determinate-ish beliefs that rule out the possibility of far future effects dominating.
To be clear, you don’t necessarily assume this in the paper, and you don’t need to, right? You need bracketing to escape cluelessness paralysis, even if you merely think it’s indeterminate whether most of the value we can influence is in the far future, afaiu.
So even if this were plausible (as Vasco thinks, for instance), this wouldn’t be enough to think we don’t need bracketing. One would need to have determinate-ish beliefs that rule out the possibility of far future effects dominating.