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.

Wei_Dai comments on Stupid Questions Open Thread Round 3 - Less Wrong Discussion

8 Post author: OpenThreadGuy 07 July 2012 05:16PM

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

Comments (208)

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

Comment author: Wei_Dai 25 December 2012 01:50:15AM 0 points [-]

So my stupid question is this: why aren't MWI and ethics just flatly in conflict?

This question used to worry me a lot too, and at one point I also considered the idea that we can't "change the fundamental amount of goodness" but just choose a path through the branching worlds.

The view that's currently prevalent among LWers who study decision theory is that you should think of yourself as being able to change mathematical facts, because decisions are themselves mathematical facts and by making decisions you determine other mathematical facts via logical implication. So for example the amount of goodness in a deterministic universe like MWI, given some initial conditions, is a mathematical fact that you can change through your decisions.

Comment author: [deleted] 25 December 2012 03:05:27AM 0 points [-]

Hmm, I don't think I understand that at all: how can one change a mathematical fact? Aren't mathematical facts fixed? Is there something you could point me to, which explains this?

Comment author: Wei_Dai 25 December 2012 03:44:31AM *  0 points [-]

Try Towards a New Decision Theory and Controlling Constant Programs. Also, I used the word "change" in my comment since you were asking the question in terms of "change", but perhaps a better term is "control", which is what Nesov uses.