= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheAncientGeek 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)
In that case most of your measure is in stable universes and dust theory isn't anything to worry about.
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? If that's the case the majority of your measure must be dust.
Dust theory has a weird pulled-up-by-your-own bootstraps taste to it and I have a strong aversion to regarding it as true, but Egan's argument against it is the best I can find and it's not entirely satisfying but should be sufficiently comforting to allow you to sleep.
There are different ways of defining ,measure. DT guarantees that lack of continuity, and therefore low density, won't be subjectivtly noticeable....at least, it will look like chaotic observations , not feral like "I'm dead"
Maybe you could include:
construed as a computation BY WHOM?
Computation is a process, and not any process, so the idea of an instantaneous computational state.
(There is a possible false dichotomy there: consciousness isnt the output of a computation that takes a lifetime to perform, but there could be still be millions of computatioNs required to generate a "specious present")