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.

endoself comments on Irrationality Game II - Less Wrong Discussion

13 [deleted] 03 July 2012 06:50PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (380)
Tags: irrationality contrarianism fun disagreement

Comments (380)

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

Comment author: endoself 05 July 2012 12:33:03AM 1 point [-]

Upvoted for underconfidence; there are a lot of bases you can use.

Comment author: prase 05 July 2012 01:19:11PM 1 point [-]

Still, what you see in one basis is not independent on what you see in another one, and I expect elegant mapping between the bases. There is difference between

  • "there exist a basis in the Hilbert space in which some vaguely interesting phenomena could be observed, if we were able to perceive the associated operator the same way as we perceive position"

and

  • "there exist simple functions of observables such as momentum, particle number or field intensities defining observables which, if we could perceive them directly, would show us a world with life and civilisations and evolution"

My 15% belief is closer to the second version.

Comment author: endoself 06 July 2012 01:41:03AM 2 points [-]

Okay, that's less likely. I'd still give it higher than 15% though. The holographic principle is very suggestive of this, for instance.

It's hard to know exactly what would count in order to make an estimate, since we don't yet know the actual laws of physics. It's obvious that "position observables, but farther away" would encode the regular type of alien, but the boundary between regular aliens and weird quantum aliens could easily blur as we learn more physics.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit