Morendil comments on MWI, copies and probability - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (127)
The poll in the previous post had to do with a hypothetical guarantee to create "extra" (non-interacting) copies.
In the situation presented here there is nothing justifying the use of the word "extra", and it seems analogous to quantum-lottery situations that have been discussed previously. I clearly have a reason to want the world to be such that (assuming MWI) as many of my future selves as possible experience a future that I would want to experience.
As I have argued previously, the term "copy" is misleading anyway, on top of which the word "extra" was reinforcing the connotations linked to copy-as-backup, where in MWI nothing of the sort is happening.
So, I'm still perplexed. Possibly a clack on my part, mind you.
I value having a future that accords with my preferences. I am in no way indifferent to your tossing a grenade my way, with a subjective 1/2 probability of dying. (Or non-subjectively, "forcing half of the future into a state where all my plans, ambitions and expectations come to a grievous end.")
I am, however, indifferent to your taking an action (creating an "extra" non-interacting copy) which has no influence on what future I will experience.
I wouldn't be happy to experience waking up and realizing that I was a copy about to be snuffed (or even wondering whether I was). So I would prefer not to inflict that on any future selves.
It doesn't really seem to matter, in that case, that you wake them up at all.
And no, I wouldn't get very worked up about the fate of such patterns (except insofar as I would like them to be preserved for backup purposes).
As cousin_it has argued, "selectively killing most of my future selves" is something that I subjectively experience as "having a sizeable probability of dying". That doesn't appeal.
Yup.