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.

TheAncientGeek 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.

Comments (154)

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

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:

  1. construed as a computation BY WHOM?

  2. 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")