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.

gwern comments on Pluralistic Existence in Many Many-Worlds - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: Neotenic 12 March 2013 02:18AM

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

Comments (30)

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

Comment author: gwern 13 March 2013 11:53:41PM 0 points [-]

Absolutely. It generates numbers at random and in one universe, it happens to always be right.

I don't see the relevance, though.

Comment author: shminux 14 March 2013 12:56:01AM 1 point [-]

The relevance is that since our imagination runs on the Turing machine of our brains, whatever we can imagine is as likely to exist as any construct based on mathematical axioms, like Tegmark level 4.

Comment author: gwern 14 March 2013 01:04:32AM 2 points [-]

Why are you jumping from some symbols being rearranged on a Turing machine to assuming unknown and arbitrarily complex instantations loosely resembling said symbols? Of course a brain 'imagining' something exists on level 4, but why credit any particular form of imagination as being coherent and also greater than mathematics? If you imagine a square triangle, how is that a refutation of Tegmark level 4, rather than, say, evidence that a brain can emit two words in succession which don't mean anything?

Comment author: shminux 14 March 2013 01:31:02AM -1 points [-]

Why privilege TL4 over your imagination?

Comment author: gwern 14 March 2013 02:37:12AM 2 points [-]

So basically, that's all that your point boils down to? "never mind the failure of millennia of imagination-based reasoning and the striking success of mathematical reasoning in those millennia, I'm just going to make imagination the arbiter of metaphysical possibility even if that means embracing contradictions and other such nonsense"? That's pretty lame.

Comment author: shminux 14 March 2013 03:56:59AM -2 points [-]

So you refused to understand my original point and resorted to misrepresenting, strawmanning and eventually insults? Nice. Tapping out.