= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Dagon comments on Collaborative Truth-Seeking - 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 (17)
is a fair restatement, but doesn't capture MWI and my model of decisions as anthropic measurement rather than universe mutation. Everything possible actually happens; your choices are just a selector/cause of which timeline your observer finds itself in.
Figuring out the truth of election outcomes (your expected experiences conditional on different actions you take and the outcomes that occur) seems fairly important to me. My current estimate on the topic is that my debating or voting will have almost no impact on my future experiences. And getting correction and updates if that is NOT true would be extremely valuable.
This statement is vague, but if you mean something broad (i.e. all that you can imagine and more), I certainly don't think this is a consequence of MWI.
Maybe I don't know something, but the statement that "everything possible actually happens" seems to me like a collation between MWI and fairy tales/poor science fiction.
Please correct me if it's me who is ignorant.
Do you claim that accepting MWI is a necessary part of rationality and/or do you claim that there is empirical difference between an MWI world and a Copenhagen world?
I should have been more clear: I meant debates between candidates, e.g. debates between candidates for the presidency of the United States. Clearly you want to win such a debate rather than truth-seek, and clearly your goals aren't exactly trivial.
Sorry to bring in MWI - it is how I model actions and decisions, but it's not necessary to the conversation.
Agreed, and I was unclear above. Many times you want to "win" by convincing people to follow you, even if you are encouraging untruth in them. You still benefit by knowing the truth, as it will help you manipulate them. I'd argue that this drifts from rationality to ethics pretty quickly, but you're absolutely right: the point of debate may not be rational truth-seeking in the first place.