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.

Squark comments on Identity and quining in UDT - Less Wrong Discussion

9 Post author: Squark 17 March 2015 08:01PM

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

Comments (26)

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

Comment author: Squark 17 March 2015 10:02:51PM *  3 points [-]

Hi jessicat, thx for commenting!

The way I'm currently thinking of this is that you ask what agent a UDT would design, and then do what that agent does, and vary what type an agent is between the different designs. Is this correct?

Sounds about right.

So is this equation (2) with P replaced with something else?

No, it's the same P. When I say "Omega's simulation doesn't involve P" I mean Omega is not executing P and using the result. Omega is using equation (2) directly, but P still enters into equation (2).

I don't understand this sentence.

Logical uncertainty (the way I see it), is a way to use a certain amount of computing resources to assign probabilities to the outcomes of a computation requiring a larger amount of computing resource. These probabilities depend on the specific resource bound. However, this is not essential to the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that if the logical uncertainty ensemble assigns non-zero probability to P producing XDT, we end up with logical correlation that is better avoided.