pnrjulius comments on Avoid inflationary use of terms - Less Wrong

74 Post author: lsparrish 30 May 2012 08:31PM

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

Comments (90)

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

Comment author: Nisan 30 May 2012 03:50:59AM *  6 points [-]

Right. But if your decision whether or not to go to school really depends on a quantum event with 50% probability, then you're not choosing to go to school for reasons. (It would be incorrect, in that case, to say "I chose to go to grad school because I knew I'd be better off with a postgraduate degree.") Instead, one is choosing a mixed strategy. So to the extent that one's decision is not deterministic, one doesn't really choose. Similar things could be said for non-quantum chaos.

I believe there's a relevant article where Eliezer defends the view that determinism is required for (his conception of) free will. EDIT: Ah yes, this one. If you and I disagree, it's probably merely about the meaning of the word "choose". In any case, talking about Everett branches when you're describing the deliberations you go through in making an everyday choice like that is almost certainly mistaken.

Comment author: pnrjulius 05 June 2012 03:50:09PM -2 points [-]

Indeed, we can only hope that our deliberations do not trigger Everett branches, or otherwise everything we've ever considered doing, has actually been done by a part of ourselves in another universe. Everyone you've gotten angry at and thought about killing is actually dead somewhere... and then, the anthropic effects of that...

Comment author: Nisan 05 June 2012 08:55:17PM 0 points [-]

I disagree with that in a number of subtle ways.