This has been proposed in the philosophy literature! It’s the simplest sort of “variable-value” view, and was originally proposed by Yew-Kwang Ng. (Although you add linearity for negative worlds.)
I think you’re right that it avoids scale-tipping, which is neat.
Beyond that, I’m not sure how your proposal differs much from joint-aggregation bounded views that we discuss in the paper?
Various issues with it: - Needs to be a “difference-making” view, otherwise is linear in practice - Violates separability - EV of near-term extinction, on this view, probably becomes very positive
Good point, those seem like important weaknesses of the view (and this is partly why I favour totalism). And good to know re Yew-Kwang Ng. Yes, it is a version of your joint-aggregation bounded view—my main point was that it seemed like scale-tipping was one of your main objections and this circumvents that, but yes there are other problems with it as you note!
This has been proposed in the philosophy literature! It’s the simplest sort of “variable-value” view, and was originally proposed by Yew-Kwang Ng. (Although you add linearity for negative worlds.)
I think you’re right that it avoids scale-tipping, which is neat.
Beyond that, I’m not sure how your proposal differs much from joint-aggregation bounded views that we discuss in the paper?
Various issues with it:
- Needs to be a “difference-making” view, otherwise is linear in practice
- Violates separability
- EV of near-term extinction, on this view, probably becomes very positive
Good point, those seem like important weaknesses of the view (and this is partly why I favour totalism). And good to know re Yew-Kwang Ng. Yes, it is a version of your joint-aggregation bounded view—my main point was that it seemed like scale-tipping was one of your main objections and this circumvents that, but yes there are other problems with it as you note!