= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Perplexed comments on Open Thread, August 2010 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (676)
My own view is that (ignoring simulations for the time being) MWI ideas have no conflict with our usual ethical intuitions and reasonings. Yes, it is the case that when I choose between evil action A and good action B, there will be two branches of the universe - one in which I choose A and one in which I choose B. This will be the case regardless of which choice I make. But this does not make my choice morally insignificant, because I split too, along with the rest of the universe. The version of me that chose evil act A will have to live thereafter with the consequences of that choice. And the version of me that chose B must live with quite different consequences.
What, more than that, could a believer in the moral significance of actions want of his universe?
The situation with respect to simulations is a bit trickier. Suppose I am deciding whether to (A) pull the plug on a simulation which contains millions of sentient (simulated) beings, or (B) allow the simulation to continue. So, I choose, and the universe branches. If I chose A, I must live with the consequences. I don't have that simulation to kick around any more. But, if I were to worry about all the simulated lives that I have so ruthlessly terminated, I can easily reassure myself that I have only terminated a redundant copy of those lives. The (now) master copy of the simulation plays on, over in that parallel universe where I chose B.
Is it wrong to create a simulation and then torture the inhabitants? Well, that is an ethical question, whereas this is a meta-ethical analysis. But the meta-ethical answer to that ethical question is that if you torture simulated beings, then you must live with the consequences of that.
That's not how MWI works, unless human brains have a quantum randomness source that they use to make decisions (which does not appear to be the case).
I'm not sure it matters to the analysis. Whether we have a Tegmark multiverse, or Everett MWI with some decisions depending on quantum randomness and others classically determined, or whether the multiple worlds are purely subjective fictions created to have a model of Bayesianism; regardless of what you think is a possible reduction of "possibly"; it is still the case that you have to live in the reality which you helped to create by way of your past actions.
agreed, it's not like scientific analysis requires the laws of physics to have no quantum randomness source etc, rather it is satisfied with finding the logical necessities between what is used to describe the observable universe.
Now we do.
Yes, MWI ideas have no conflict with usual ethical intuitions. And they also help you make better sense of those intuitions. Counterfactuals really do exist, for example; they're not just some hypothetical that is in point of fact physically impossible.
but we shouldn't concern ourselves with counter factuals if they aren't part of our observed universe.
My impression is that sometimes we do need to deal with them in order to make the math come out right, even though the only thing we are really concerned about is our observed universe. Just as we sometimes need to deal with negative numbers of sheep - however difficult we may find this to visualize if we work as a shepherd.
true, but there are no 'negative sheep', only numbers arbitrarily representing them.
but we shouldn't concern ourselves with numbers if they aren't part of our observed universe.
numbers are quite useful, so we don't/shouldn't do away with them, but the math is never a complete substitute for the observable universe.
writing down '20 sheep' doesn't physically equal 20 sheep, rather it's a method we use for simplicity. as it stands, no two sheep are alike to every last detail as far as anyone can tell, yet we still have a category called 'sheep'. this is so given the observed recurrence of 'sheep' like entities, similar enough for us to categorize them for practicality's sake, but that doesn't mean they're physically all alike to every detail.
it could be argued that sometimes the math does equate with reality, as in 'Oxygen atom' is a category consisting of entirely similar things, but even that is not confirmed, simply an assertion; no human has observed all 'Oxygen atoms' in existence to be similar in every detail, or even in some arbitrarily 'essential' detail/s. yet it is enough for the purposes of science to consider them all similar, and so we go with it,otherwise we'd never have coherent thought let alone science.
it might very well be that all Oxygen atoms in existence are physically the same in some ways, but we have no way of actually knowing. this doesn't mean that there are 'individual atoms', but it doesn't negate it either.
ETA: as pengvado said in below post, replace 'atom' with 'particle'.
No Individual Particles. The fact that measurements of their mass/charge/etc have always come out the same, is not the only evidence we have for all particles of a given type being identical.
(A whole oxygen atom is a bad example, though. Atoms have degrees of freedom beyond the types of particles they're made of.)
yes, I had that specific post in mind when I presented the atom example. you're correct here though, I should have said particles,I shouldn't write so late after midnight I guess..
now I admit that my understanding of quantum mechanics is not that much above a lay persons', so maybe I just need to apply myslef more and It'll click, but let's consider my arguement first:- here's what EY said in reply to a post in that thread-emphasis mine: "There can be properties of the particles we don't know about yet, but our existing experiments already show those new properties are also identical, unless the observed universe is a lie."
and then: "Undiscovering this would be like undiscovering that atoms were made out of nucleons and electrons.
It's in this sense that I say that the observed universe would have to be a lie."
here I believe he's making a mistake/displaying a bias; the math-of Quantum Mechanics in this particular instance- does not determine physical reality, rather it describes it to some degree or other.
to suggest that the mathematics of quantum mechanics is the end of the road is too strong a claim IMO.
I don't have any arguments that weren't discussed in that post; so far as I can tell, it already adequately addressed your objection:
QM doesn't have to be the end of the road. If QM is a good approximation of reality on the scales it claims to predict in the situations we have already tested it in -- if the math of QM does describe reality to some degree or other -- then that's enough for the quantum tests of particle identity to work exactly.
Uhmm. I hate to explain my own jokes, but ... You did notice the formal similarity between my "we shouldn't concern ourselves" comment and its great grandparent, right?
I noticed, but there was a clear difference that I felt was necessary to point out regardless.
True (only) in the sense that our numbers are part of our map and not the territory. In the same sense we have no way of actually knowing there are patterns in the universe appropriately named Oxygen. Or Frog.
good point about the map/territory distinction, that was what I intended to say but couldn't put into so few words, thanks :)
and no, it seems that not even Frog can escape this, I'm not sure about it's significance here though?
I should add that it is impossible to erase your sin by deciding to terminate the simulation, so as to "euthanize" the victims of your torture. Because there is always a branch where you don't so decide, and the victims of your torture live on.