Lumifer comments on Crazy Ideas Thread - October 2015 - Less Wrong

7 Post author: Gunnar_Zarncke 06 October 2015 10:38PM

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

Comments (114)

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

Comment author: Lumifer 29 October 2015 02:56:04PM 0 points [-]

If I'm being simulated, I have already been "resurrected". But what is the point of resurrection? You yourself say "so you can transfer ... to heaven" and given that, what is the reason for running the simulation at all instead of not collecting $200 and going directly to heaven?

Comment author: entirelyuseless 29 October 2015 03:20:08PM 0 points [-]

If the simulation isn't run all the way through, the simulators couldn't be sure they were resurrecting you instead of someone else (since the mind they were simulating might suddenly have started to do other things that you wouldn't have done, if they had continued to the simulation.) For example, suppose they base the simulation in part on your Less Wrong comments. If they manage to produce a mind that produces the first half of your comments, then they say, "good enough, let's move that to heaven," it might be that the mind they put in heaven would have gone on to produce a second set of comments totally diverse from the real ones that you made. So it ended up being someone else in heaven, not you.

Comment author: Lumifer 29 October 2015 03:33:25PM 0 points [-]

That goes to the issue of who is "you".

I, a year ago, was a slightly different person than I am now. Both past-me and current-me are me. You are essentially saying that me-who-died is the version that should go to heaven and all the previous versions should not. Why?

We can also reverse the issue -- in a simulation, I don't have to die. If I am hit by a bus, insert a one-minute delay somewhere and the simulated-I will continue to live. Should that longer-lived version go to heaven, then?

Comment author: jacob_cannell 29 October 2015 04:30:09PM 1 point [-]

Historical consistency - an intervention like that quickly leads to a fictional world that is ranked low in the ress utility function (because people from that fictional world don't go on to create the actual future resurrection).

Comment author: Lumifer 29 October 2015 04:54:56PM 0 points [-]

So is this whole "res utility function" based on obligations arising out of acausal trades?

Comment author: jacob_cannell 29 October 2015 05:45:05PM 1 point [-]

In part but there are also can be regular causal trades between simulators within each world. For example a future simulation physically located in say china will necessarily be separate from located in canada. These simulators can trade in the more regular sense.