= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jacob_cannell comments on I need a protocol for dangerous or disconcerting ideas. - 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 (154)
Still don't understand your point/question - what do you mean by "reducing destruction to a binary event"?. Earlier I mentioned that destruction/survival isn't binary at all.
The idea is that there is always some branches in which a version of yourself survives. Survival is not binary, there are different degrees of 'survival'.
Yes, there are always some branches. But you can only follow one at a time. If you are in a branch in which your skull is being crushed, you are not likely to jump to a branch where you are totally fine.
There always exists some tiny subset of branches where you survive.
BTW, I don't completely buy the argument - as I mentioned earlier, measure is important and it works out to normality of probability. If my skull is being crushed, most of the branches past that point don't contain me. I care about the whole set, so the fact that I always survive in some tiny rare branches is not much of a consolation.