CronoDAS comments on Less Wrong Q&A with Eliezer Yudkowsky: Video Answers - Less Wrong

41 Post author: MichaelGR 07 January 2010 04:40AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (94)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: CronoDAS 08 January 2010 11:58:44PM 0 points [-]

There is no time machine utilized here; you just live into the future normally.

Well, I think the most plausible way for me to live to see more than 120 years after my date of birth involves cryonics - and that might as well be time travel into the future.

If I'm teleported to the future and see all kind of horrifying things around me, this evidence that the future is a bad future is somewhat discounted because first I have to rule out the possibility that the "horrors" I see are manifestations or side effects of moral progress.

I would think so too; if all goes reasonably well, the future would be better for those that live in it, but that doesn't mean I won't be disturbed by it. And people in the future would probably judge me guilty of either contributing to or failing to prevent horrible crimes, much the same as we consider the ancient Romans to have been responsible for many horrible things. I don't want to be put on trial for eating factory farmed meat, for example.

Comment author: [deleted] 18 August 2011 04:04:27PM *  3 points [-]

I don't want to be put on trial for eating factory farmed meat, for example.

Behold the radiant beauty that is nullum crimen sine lege (specifically forbidding ex post facto laws as many modern legal systems do). Of course while this is pretty widely embraced by most decent places to live, it in practice isn't really robust since we've seen violations of this principle on a massive scale in recent history.

But a future that upheld it consistently would be pretty neat. Or so it seems to me when naively looking at it.