gjm comments on Causal Universes - Less Wrong

60 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 29 November 2012 04:08AM

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

Comments (385)

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

Comment author: JulianMorrison 28 November 2012 12:03:34PM 5 points [-]

Re [1] I totally noticed that "Flight of the Navigator" is a story about a kidnapped, returned boy who forges a new relationship with his older parents and ex younger, now older brother, and a cute nurse at the government facility, and then kills them all.

To say understanding this spoiled the story for me is an understatement. That movie has more dead people than Star Wars. It's a fricken' tragedy.

Comment author: gjm 28 November 2012 03:18:13PM 1 point [-]

Um. Doesn't Star Wars (I take it we're talking about the movie otherwise known as "Episode IV" rather than the whole series) more or less begin with the destruction of an entire planet? And ... is it actually clear that the only way to implement time travel is the one Eliezer describes, and that it's best described as killing everyone involved? It doesn't look that way to me.

But I haven't seen Flight of the Navigator so maybe there are details that nail things down more.

Comment author: JulianMorrison 28 November 2012 03:33:15PM 9 points [-]

The Star Wars series is about the tragic destruction of one planet and two death stars, and the childish bickering that caused it.

Flight of the Navigator ends the timeline. It destroys every planet, every star, every wandering spaceship billions of light years into the dark, total universal omnicide. And a reboot into a new timeline from a previously existing history.

Comment author: Cyan 28 November 2012 09:06:00PM 3 points [-]

Upvoted for "omnicide".

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 29 November 2012 02:28:22PM *  1 point [-]

And it does it on a routine basis. After all, most of the critters are returned to the moment they were taken.

Comment author: Kindly 29 November 2012 02:40:17PM 2 points [-]

Why would the old timeline deserve to exist more than the new one?

Comment author: JulianMorrison 29 November 2012 05:07:12PM -1 points [-]

Suppose I destroy the timeline, and create an identical one. Have I committed a moral evil? No, because nothing has been lost.

Suppose I destroy the timeline, and restart from an earlier point. Have I committed a moral evil? Very much yes. What was lost? To give only one person's example from Flight of the Navigator out of a planet of billions, out of a whole universe, the younger brother who was left behind had spent years - of personal growth, of creating value and memories - helping his parents with their quixotic search. And then bonding with the new younger "older" brother, rejoicing with his parents, marvelling at the space ship. And then he was erased.

Comment author: Kindly 29 November 2012 05:20:08PM 0 points [-]

I don't disagree that things are lost. But on the other hand, there are things that the new timeline has that the old timeline didn't as well. In the new timeline, the younger brother also has experiences that his counterpart in the old timeline did not.

By choosing not to destroy the timeline to create a new one, you deny the new-timeline younger brother his experiences, as well as everyone else in the new universe. Either way, something is lost. It seems that the only reason to treat the original universe as special is status-quo bias.

Comment author: Decius 29 November 2012 05:36:03PM 0 points [-]

Suppose I have the opportunity to end literally all suffering in the universe, and choose not to.

Comment author: chaosmosis 30 November 2012 01:57:10AM *  1 point [-]
  1. These experiences aren't undone. They are stopped. There is a difference. Something happy that happens, and then is over, still counts as a happy thing.

  2. You destroy valuable lives. You also create valuable lives. If creating things has as much value as maintaining them does, then the act of creative destruction is morally neutral. Since the only reasons that I can think of why maintaining lives might matter are also reasons that the existence of life is a good thing, I think that maintenance and creation are morally equal.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 29 November 2012 05:54:55PM 1 point [-]

Tentative answer: It was presumably more of a collaborative process than a timeline chosen by one person.

Any opinions about Asimov's The End of Eternity? An organization attempts to optimize the timeline. The book might be a good starter for discussion of CEV, terminal values, and such.

Has anyone read Garfinkle's *All of an Instant"? I've never finished it, but the premise is that time travel is a biological capacity, and when many people discover it, all chaos ensues.