Will_Newsome comments on A Rationalist's Tale - Less Wrong

82 Post author: lukeprog 28 September 2011 01:17AM

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

Comments (305)

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

Comment author: Will_Newsome 12 September 2011 05:32:03AM *  1 point [-]

If you bring semi-logical considerations into it then the obvious pro-theism one is Omohundro's AI drives plus game theory. Simulators gonna simulate. (And superintelligences have a lot of computing resources with which to do so.) (Semi-logical because there are physical reasons we expect agents to work in certain ways.)

Comment author: Jack 12 September 2011 05:45:48AM 0 points [-]

I was not using your definition of theism since theism scenarios where the God evolved aren't distinct hypotheses from "complexity from thermodynamics and evolution". There is more evidence for your version of God, the simulation argument in particular. But miracles, revelation and mystical experience count far less.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 12 September 2011 05:50:41AM *  -1 points [-]

There are timeful/timeless issues 'cuz there's an important sense in which a superintelligence is just an instantiation of a timeless algorithm. (So it's less clear if it counts as having evolved.) But partitioning away that stuff makes sense.

Comment author: wedrifid 12 September 2011 06:33:38AM 1 point [-]

There are timeful/timeless issues 'cuz there's an important sense in which a superintelligence is just an instantiation of a timeless algorithm.

Not true. There are some superintelligences that could be constructed that way but that is only a small set of possible superintelligences. Others have nothing timeless about their algorithm and don't need it to be superintelligent.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 12 September 2011 06:36:37AM *  0 points [-]

That's one hypothesis, but I'd only assign like 90% to it being true in the decisions-relevant sense. Probably gets swamped by other parts of the prior, no?

Comment author: wedrifid 12 September 2011 06:54:52AM *  0 points [-]

Probably gets swamped by other parts of the prior, no?

I don't believe so. But your statement is too ambiguous to resolve to any specific meaning.

Comment author: Jack 12 September 2011 05:53:22AM *  0 points [-]

There are timeful/timeless issues 'cuz there's an important sense in which a superintelligence is just an instantiation of a timeless algorithm.

What sense is that? Or rather, I'm confused about this whole bit.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 12 September 2011 06:18:45AM *  2 points [-]

A naive view sees a lump of matter being turned into a program whose execution just happens to correlate with the execution of similar programs across the Schmidhuberian computational ensemble. (If you don't assume a computational ensemble to begin with then you just have to factor that uncertainty in.) A different view is that there's no correlation without shared causation, and anyway that all those program-running matter-globs are just shards of a single algorithm that just happens to be distributed from a physical perspective. But if those shards all cooperate, even acausally, it's only in a rather arbitrary sense that they're different superintelligences. It's like a community of very similar neurons, not a community of somewhat different humans. So when a new physical instantiation of that algorithm pops up it's not like that changes much of anything about the timeless equilibrium of which that new physical instantiation is now a member. The god was always there behind the scenes, it just waited a bit before revealing itself in this particular world.

I apologize for the poor explanation/communication.