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.

Eitan_Zohar comments on You are (mostly) a simulation. - Less Wrong Discussion

-4 Post author: Eitan_Zohar 18 July 2015 04:40PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (102)

Comments (102)

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

Comment author: Eitan_Zohar 18 July 2015 04:23:40PM *  -2 points [-]

You have said that what you are worried about is observing chaos,

I do not recall saying any such thing.

although you have also said that you have a solution to the no-physical-law problem of DT. So who knows?

I really don't know what the heck you are talking about. "No-physical-law" problem? And I thought I was bad at conveying these concepts.

ETA If you jump, but don't notice you are jumping, what is the problem.

The problem is that I prefer for my subjective consciousness to stay in one world.

Which is?

An extrapolation from a single coherent theory, which you apparently think works through 'observation.'

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 18 July 2015 06:48:52PM 0 points [-]

Why should it disobey every observed law of physics? Are you arguing that conscious observers would almost certainly experience chaos? If so I agree with you. I don't accept 'pure' Dust Theory.

Observing chaos is the same thing as having no discernible physical laws.

ETA If you jump, but don't notice you are jumping, what is the problem.

The problem is that I prefer for my subjective consciousness to stay in one world.

Why?

Comment author: Eitan_Zohar 18 July 2015 06:55:47PM *  -2 points [-]

Why should it disobey every observed law of physics? Are you arguing that conscious observers would almost certainly experience chaos? If so I agree with you. I don't accept 'pure' Dust Theory.

Observing chaos is the same thing as having no discernible physical laws.

I took your use of the word 'worried' to say that I was afraid this was true.

Why?

Because I subjectively value my universe and do not wish to go to another one.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 19 July 2015 08:13:31AM -1 points [-]

Under MWI and DT, which are not the same theory, you dont go to another universe, in the sense of leaving the old one..

Under physicalism+simulationusmism, which is not the same as the other two, you can cease to exist at one point in time, and be resurrected in a simulation millions of years later. But I don't see how staying awake would prevent that.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 19 July 2015 02:18:19PM -1 points [-]

extrapolation from a single coherent theory

I note that Coherent falls some way short of True or even Likely.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit