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.

JoshuaFox comments on Bragging Thread February 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: Gunnar_Zarncke 08 February 2015 03:19PM

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

Comments (18)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: JoshuaFox 11 February 2015 04:07:30PM 5 points [-]

I rewrote the LW Wiki article on Acausal Trade. I had originally written this article, but it was too heavily based on multiverse concepts, which are not essential to acausal trade. Also, it made too much use of quasimathematical variables.

I rewrote it in the style I'd use to explain the concept face-to-face to a LessWronger. I will appreciate edits and improvements on the Wiki. Actually, it would be good to see a number of articles, including one in academic style.

This is, as far as I know, the only article explaining the concept. Considering that this term is in common use in LW circles and was even used in Bostrom's recent academic article, I am surprised that no one else has written one.

Comment author: MakoYass 13 February 2015 06:58:37AM 0 points [-]

The link to A Kruel's blog has 404ed. What did it say? My bets on "something superficially respectable under the transhumanist aesthetic but irredeemably incorrect" because I've never seen a Kruel post that wasn't like that.

Comment author: JoshuaFox 13 February 2015 08:59:51AM 2 points [-]

Thank you. I have removed the link from the Wiki. The item is available in archive.org. It's a short description of acausal trade with a focus on simulation as the way that one agent predicts the other's behavior.

Comment author: MakoYass 13 February 2015 06:42:00AM 0 points [-]

Truly doing god's work, insofar as we can infer what that would be.

I don't think objections should be listed in the article. We have a much better medium for reading, browsing and forwarding living debates than a wiki. In the case of the second objection, I don't believe that's either a common objection or a compelling one. Superrationality does not mandate that we care about universes we can't affect, which will never affect us. If you define "us" in such a way as to include our extrauniversal counterparts, you get something which resembles that, but by definition it is not what it resembles.