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.

James_Miller comments on I need a protocol for dangerous or disconcerting ideas. - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: Eitan_Zohar 12 July 2015 01:58AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (154)

CC Licenced

Comments (154)

Sort By: Best

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: James_Miller 12 July 2015 02:41:58AM 2 points [-]

Let X be something bad. If X is true it is something you and nearly every other person should rightly fear. If, however, no one but you fears X than either (1) you are mistaken, or (2) you have some special information or insight that everyone else lacks. Logically, it's almost certainly (1). So if you fear X but Eliezer, Bostrom, and Hanson don't appear to, take comfort from their lack of fear even if you don't understand it.

Comment author: adamzerner 12 July 2015 04:02:24AM * 1 point [-]

but Eliezer, Bostrom, and Hanson don't appear to

I'm glad you qualify this with "appear to". At some point the thought occurred to me that it isn't always in their strategic interest to publicize everything, or even to be honest about everything they think. Previously I just assumed that they'd always be honest, and I sense that other people might be (unconsciously?) making the same assumption. I don't understand X well enough at all to speak to this particular situation though. I guess I'm just glad you acknowledge the possibility.

take comfort from their lack of fear even if you don't understand it.

That could be difficult to do. It shouldn't be that difficult to update ones confidence given the beliefs of these smart people, but updating your confidence and updating your comfort levels unfortunately are different things. I'm not sure how linked they are in this situation though.

Comment author: Eitan_Zohar comment score below threshold [+] (14 children)

Comment author: James_Miller 12 July 2015 02:52:37AM * 0 points [-]

While (2) is possible, the probability is low. Academics love counter-intuitive problems and think about them a lot. Bostrom might not understanding Dust Theory in the way that he doesn't understand the power of the Time Cube.

Comment author: Eitan_Zohar 12 July 2015 02:59:59AM -2 points [-]

Few people know about Dust Theory, even fewer understand it intuitively.

Comment author: Halfwitz 12 July 2015 03:20:38AM * 0 points [-]

Dust theory is beautiful and terrifying, but what do you say to Egan's argument against it: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/PERMUTATION/FAQ/FAQ.html

Comment author: Eitan_Zohar 12 July 2015 03:34:18AM * 0 points [-]

Erm, you mean his argument that we would expect to find ourselves in a more chaotic universe? Well, it might be that such observers are less 'dense' than ones in a stable universe (I never grasped the mathematics of it), and if that's the case than I don't see how the argument works. But then the opposite problem applies- our universe is far too complex, and relies upon contingencies that are highly improbable, merely for observers to exist. The only solution for the 'Big World' is that universes like these have a high-base rate, and that this really is the most common type of scenario that produces life. But that can't save Dust Theory, and probably not Ultimate Ensemble either.

On the other hand, if Egan is right, losing mental awareness in a chaotic universe could have the opposite effect of what I first thought- propelling you into more stable worlds by virtue of your continued existence. This may explain our current observations. But that's a very cloudy line of thinking. Maybe such beings "join" with sleeping human infants if the observations match theirs. But still, this universe seems too stable; why would they have defaulted to this one? And why would the most common type of observer be similar enough to human even to have that much in common?

I'm pretty sure someone who knows what they're talking about could put this question to rest. But no one here will even understand it.

Comment author: Halfwitz 12 July 2015 03:44:26AM * 0 points [-]

Well, it might be that such observers are less 'dense' than ones in a stable universe

In that case most of your measure is in stable universes and dust theory isn't anything to worry about.

But that can't be the case, as isn't the whole point of dust theory that basically any set of relations can be construed as a computation implementing your subjective experience, and this experience is self-justifying? If that's the case the majority of your measure must be dust.

Dust theory has a weird pulled-up-by-your-own bootstraps taste to it and I have a strong aversion to regarding it as true, but Egan's argument against it is the best I can find and it's not entirely satisfying but should be sufficiently comforting to allow you to sleep.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 12 July 2015 12:48:51PM * 0 points [-]

In that case most of your measure is in stable universes and dust theory isn't anything to worry about._

There are different ways of defining ,measure. DT guarantees that lack of continuity, and therefore low density, won't be subjectivtly noticeable....at least, it will look like chaotic observations , not feral like "I'm dead"

Dust theory has a weird pulled-up-by-your-own bootstraps taste to it and I have a strong aversion to regarding it as true, but Egan's argument against it is the best I can find and it's not entirely satisfying but should be sufficiently comforting to allow you to sleep.

Maybe you could include:

construed as a computation BY WHOM?
Computation is a process, and not any process, so the idea of an instantaneous computational state.

(There is a possible false dichotomy there: consciousness isnt the output of a computation that takes a lifetime to perform, but there could be still be millions of computatioNs required to generate a "specious present")

Comment author: Eitan_Zohar 12 July 2015 03:58:06AM * 0 points [-]

But that can't be the case, as isn't the whole point of dust theory that basically any set of relations can be construed as a computation implementing your subjective experience, and this experience is self-justifying?

Not necessarily to you. It doesn't have to make much sense to you at all. But our observations are orderly, and that is something that can't be explained by the majority of our measure being dust. Why would it default to this?

If you make Egan's assumption, I think it is an extremely strong argument.

Comment author: Halfwitz 12 July 2015 04:04:21AM 0 points [-]

If you make Egan's assumption, I think it is an extremely strong argument.

Why don't you buy it?

Comment author: Eitan_Zohar 12 July 2015 04:11:12AM * 0 points [-]

I don't reject it, I simply think that Dust Theory based on this assumption is so unlikely that we may as well assume the opposite- that different patterns can be more common; have more measure, than others.

continue this thread »

James_Miller comments on I need a protocol for dangerous or disconcerting ideas. - Less Wrong Discussion

Article Navigation

Comments (154)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Open Threads

Recent Rationality Diaries

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (154)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login