= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eitan_Zohar comments on The Consequences of Dust Theory. - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (66)
Ok, now this is just semantic quibbling.
The claim that I have counterparts of whom I am completely am necessarily unaware is extraordinary, and requires strong support.
If you accept Dust Theory or at least MWI, then isn't it a given?
I don't accept either ...why should I?
This thread was about the consequences of Dust Theory. Arguments against DT are welcome, but I don't think I have the burden of proof here.
In which way is this different from posting a thread about the consequences of an angry and vengeful God being less than pleased with you, and then saying that you don't have the burden of proof here?
An angry and vengeful God is useful as a thought experiment. Dust Theory and MWI are much more than that, since quite a few people on this site either believe in them or take them quite seriously.
The number of people who believe in an angry and vengeful God is many orders of magnitude greater than the number of people who believe in Dust Theory. Coming to think of it, is there anyone who actually believes in the Dust Theory?
I don't know; maybe only MWI is required, but Eliezer seems to take it seriously.
I assume Eliezer would agree there's a lot we don't know about MWI, starting with whether or not anyone actually experiences a low-amplitude "world". Then there's the (separate?) question of whether or not we should require a causal connection between states before treating one as a continuation of another. And we're very confused as to what sort of 'starting conditions' are allowed, philosophically - I would agree that the theory seems to allow all sorts of weird variants, but see point 1 and our lack of understanding of the Born rule. (If we allow Bolztmann brains to share our past experience, the probabilities appear very different!)
Oh, and as near as I can tell you're concluding that sleep gives us new information about what world we're in because you falsely assume we have the potential option of not sleeping.
MWI and DT are not the same, and many mire people here believe the former over the latter.
You previously stated that you had already provided the proof,
Yes, turchin's argument I meant. But I don't need it just to discuss consequences.
You claim to be distressed by the consequences. Why be distressed by the consequences of something you have no good reason to believe.
I do. Unification (Bostrom's term) seems to be almost irrefutable, and therefore Dust Theory is at least partly right.
Bostrom himself appears to reject Unification.