= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eitan_Zohar comments on I need a protocol for dangerous or disconcerting ideas. - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (154)
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.
I'm confused. What were you referring to when you said, "on this assumption"?
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.'
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.
What exactly does this mean? All minds are going to find some 'justification' as to why they exist.
Well, they ,might, if they were coherent emough, transtemporally, to even have anything resembling a thought. But why would that be the case?