You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

cousin_it comments on Best shot at immortality? - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: tomme 22 March 2012 10:29AM

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

Comments (85)

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

Comment author: cousin_it 22 March 2012 08:21:02PM *  0 points [-]

You're right that my words don't provide new evidence to you, but if you anticipate becoming a rescue sim at some point and that doesn't happen, that's evidence against rescue sims for you.

Comment author: [deleted] 22 March 2012 08:48:52PM 0 points [-]

Even internally, no, that still doesn't work. The evidence that your current continuity has observed is not influenced by whether or not rescue sims exist. That's the same thing as saying that you have seen no evidence one way or the other. Even if multiple other versions of you are instantiated in the future, what the continuity of yourself that is typing this observes doesn't change.

Comment author: cousin_it 22 March 2012 09:54:52PM *  4 points [-]

I don't think that's the right way to do Bayesian updating in the presence of observer-splitting.

Imagine I sell you a device that I claim to be a fair quantum coin. The first run of the device gives you 1000 heads in a row. You try again, and get another 1000 heads. You come back to my store to demand a refund, and I reply that my fair coin gives rise to many branches including this one, so you have nothing to complain about. Do you buy my explanation, or insist that the coin is defective?

Comment author: [deleted] 22 March 2012 10:20:08PM 3 points [-]

I started to write a rebuttal, but it's quickly becoming clear to me that I don't have a systematic way of reasoning about this topic. I don't necessarily agree with you, but I need to give the matter a lot more thought. Thank you for giving me something to think about.

Comment author: [deleted] 23 March 2012 03:20:56PM 0 points [-]

My concern is basically that I'm profoundly uncomfortable with the idea of evidence flowing backwards in time. I mean, you're updating your beliefs about the future based on what you haven't seen happen in the future.