= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
David_Gerard comments on Decoherent Essences - 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 (34)
Is this really the case? It seems to me that that the interpretation of QM (and almost all micro-level details of fundamental physics) ought to be (and in Eliezer's case, are) independent of "macro-level" philosophy. Eliezer could justify his reductionism, his Bayesianism, his utilitarian ethics, his atheism, his opposition to most kinds of moral discounting, his intuitions regarding decision theory, his models of mind and of language, and his futurism - he could justify all these things even if he were a strict Newtonian believer in simple determinism who models all apparent indeterminacy as ignorance of the true initial conditions.
To my mind, the micro assumptions don't change the macro conclusions, they only change the way we talk about and justify them.
And then there's Timeless Identity, which expressly claims to be the philosophical payoff from the QM sequence. Given that post and the introduction I quoted from Quantum Explanations, I really don't see how you can deny that his philosophy builds directly on his interpretation of QM.
It appears you are right. Eliezer derives his conclusions regarding zombies, personal identity, and the philosophy of transporters and duplicators from his understanding of QM.
On the other hand, I reach exactly the same conclusions on these issues without really understanding QM. Of course, I have the advantage over Eliezer that I have read far less Philosophy. :)
People shouldn't build too much of their philosophy on top of the MWI, IMO. If evidence that relatively "distant" worlds are being deleted is found then they would have to revisit it all. That doesn't seem terribly likely - but we can hardly rule it out. Occam's razor just doesn't rule against it that strongly.
Love the Philosophy jibe! :)
Well, ISTM that this sort of reductionism/functionalism is still right in a classical universe, just going by the whole notion of beliefs should pay rent; but it's not forced like it is in the actual universe.