One can also add a discount factor for time, besides distance.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.07975 (thats by a UCB emereti prof, one of whose students had something to do with measuring the universe and got a noble price for it—there’s a related theory (at least to me) from France -‘scale relativity’) .

since richard posner was mentioned, here is his son

radicalmarkets.com or https://radicalmarkets.com (i have a similar (simple) theory except mine is pretty much the mirror image–some say the left is the mirror image of the right , though if its non-commutative instead one might have wrong is the mirror image of the right, and 2 wrongs make a right— ahronov-bohm effect ).

there is the Feynman-Wheeler ‘one electron universe’ which supports the idea that the price of universe is same as price of earth–you can make a universe with many electrons, from one with just one electron–they are equivalent.

applied to things like life on earth, one can get into ‘trolley problems’ (Derek Parfit)–do you save the one, or the many?

Research has shown that fundraising during disasters is more effective if you focus on a few people, rather than talk about the large number of people involved.

]]>I think I get the point. I am an economist myself and have no trouble understanding Posner’s calculation, or what it can be used for. I also understand that you were just playing with the idea, but I thought it was amusing that an economist had to point out the implications of spacetime.

In defence of Posner, I think he was just trying to show that even by a simplified measure, the collider was too risky.

]]>I’m not really using time as measured ‘from our present perspective on Earth’, I’m really just taking the number that some economist had the guts to provide as an estimate for the total value of the Earth and multiplying it by a crude estimate of the number of similar planets in the observable Universe. True, that economist came up with his estimate using a process of discounting. But any economist on any Earth-like planet could do the same; there’s nothing particularly nonrelativistic about this calculation. Of course, other economists on other Earth-like planets wouldn’t use dollars, and the whole idea of estimating a value for the Earth is pretty strange. Luckily, this whole blog post of mine was not meant to be taken very seriously.

]]>But you do discount time, which is done exactly from our present perspective from Earth.

]]>My calculation is based on the standard model of cosmology, which takes general relativity into account. But I don’t discount distance: doing that says that the value of distant things decreases exponentially with their distance. That would make some sense if we were talking about the value of the universe *to us here on Earth*. But I wasn’t doing that.