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.

Gurkenglas comments on Linked decisions an a "nice" solution for the Fermi paradox - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: Beluga 07 December 2014 02:58PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (11)
Tags: decisions linked theory decision paradox fermi

Comments (11)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Gurkenglas 08 December 2014 04:25:44PM *  0 points [-]

If I am choosing the algorithm that all civilisations are going to follow, if one civilisation succeeded that would lead to large positive utilities for all future civilisations. Why would I let the game end?

Comment author: Beluga 08 December 2014 10:56:08PM 1 point [-]

Not sure I understand your question, but:

  • I assume that each civilization only cares about itself. So one civilization succeeding does not "lead to large positive utilities for all future civilisations", only for itself. If civilization A assigns positive or negative value to civilization B succeeding, the expected utility calculations become more complicated.
  • You cannot "let the game end". The fact that the game ends when one player receives R only represents the fact that each player knows that no previous player has received R (i.e., we arguably know that no civilization so far has successfully colonized space in our neighborhood).
Comment author: habeuscuppus 10 December 2014 09:57:10PM 0 points [-]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to state that R represents an enduring multi-system technological civilization and not mere colonial presence?

I don't think we can arguably claim that space in our stellar neighborhood has never been colonized, just that it does not appear to be currently

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit