Halfwitz comments on I need a protocol for dangerous or disconcerting ideas. - Less Wrong

3 Post author: Eitan_Zohar 12 July 2015 01:58AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (154)

Comments (154)

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

Comment author: Eitan_Zohar 12 July 2015 03:58:06AM *  0 points [-]

But that can't be the case, as isn't the whole point of dust theory that basically any set of relations can be construed as a computation implementing your subjective experience, and this experience is self-justifying?

Not necessarily to you. It doesn't have to make much sense to you at all. But our observations are orderly, and that is something that can't be explained by the majority of our measure being dust. Why would it default to this?

If you make Egan's assumption, I think it is an extremely strong argument.

Comment author: Halfwitz 12 July 2015 04:04:21AM 0 points [-]

If you make Egan's assumption, I think it is an extremely strong argument.

Why don't you buy it?

Comment author: Eitan_Zohar 12 July 2015 04:11:12AM *  0 points [-]

I don't reject it, I simply think that Dust Theory based on this assumption is so unlikely that we may as well assume the opposite- that different patterns can be more common; have more measure, than others.

Comment author: Halfwitz 12 July 2015 04:22:00AM *  0 points [-]

I'm confused. What were you referring to when you said, "on this assumption"?

Comment author: Eitan_Zohar 12 July 2015 04:26:02AM *  0 points [-]

That you find yourself randomly selected from a pool of all conceivable observers, rather than a pool with probabilities assigned to them.

EDIT: Actually, the former option is flatly impossible, because my mindstate would jump to any conceivable one that could be generated from it. I would have an infinitesimal chance of becoming coherent enough to have anything resembling a 'thought.'

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 17 July 2015 08:33:05PM *  0 points [-]

Then why would you begin to suspect that the pool of observers does not coincide with the set of minds that have a physical instantiation and dynamics? If there's a nontrivial probability distribution, then there's going to be SOME sort of rules involved, and physics gives us a really solid candidate for what those rules might be.

Comment author: Eitan_Zohar 18 July 2015 07:02:47AM *  0 points [-]

the set of minds that have a physical instantiation and dynamics?

What exactly does this mean? All minds are going to find some 'justification' as to why they exist.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 21 July 2015 08:46:25AM 0 points [-]

Well, they ,might, if they were coherent emough, transtemporally, to even have anything resembling a thought. But why would that be the case?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit