It is completely not about being more or less impressive.
Care to elaborate? Because otherwise I can say "it totally is!", and we leave at that.
That's why it wasn't the entirety of my comment. Sigh.
Absolutely not. You can always add the two and get even more predictive power.
This is plainly wrong, as any Bayesian-minded person will know. P(X|A, B) = P(X|A) is not a priori forbidden by the laws of probability.
Saying "absolutely not" when nobody's actually done the experiment yet (AFAIK) is disingenuous.
Of course, nothing excludes (but at the same time, nothing warrants) that different kind of phoenomena will emerge in the investigation of higher resolution experiments.
If you actually believe this, then this conversation is completely pointless, and I'm annoyed that you've wasted my time.
Scott Aaronson has a new 85 page essay up, titled "The Ghost in the Quantum Turing Machine". (Abstract here.) In Section 2.11 (Singulatarianism) he explicitly mentions Eliezer as an influence. But that's just a starting point, and he then moves in a direction that's very far from any kind of LW consensus. Among other things, he suggests that a crucial qualitative difference between a person and a digital upload is that the laws of physics prohibit making perfect copies of a person. Personally, I find the arguments completely unconvincing, but Aaronson is always thought-provoking and fun to read, and this is a good excuse to read about things like (I quote the abstract) "the No-Cloning Theorem, the measurement problem, decoherence, chaos, the arrow of time, the holographic principle, Newcomb's paradox, Boltzmann brains, algorithmic information theory, and the Common Prior Assumption". This is not just a shopping list of buzzwords, these are all important components of the author's main argument. It unfortunately still seems weak to me, but the time spent reading it is not wasted at all.