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.

Lumifer comments on Crazy Ideas Thread - October 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

7 Post author: Gunnar_Zarncke 06 October 2015 10:38PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (114)
Tags: thread crazy_idea

Comments (114)

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

Comment author: Lumifer 29 October 2015 05:06:05PM 0 points [-]

Probability distributions can be defined as subsets over possible logical worlds.

I still don't understand.

Let's drastically simplify things. Consider an ordered set of two mes -- me one minute ago and me now. In which sense this set is a probability distribution? What does it mean?

So in some future resurrection, there would be potentially many versions of each mind from different possible worlds. Across the multiverse, many different simulators will recreate many different past historical sims. ... success simply requires adequate coverage across the space of all sims over the multiverse

So are you arguing that future resurrections will be, basically, a brute-force approach? In the sense of "We can't be sure whether A or B happened, so we'll simulate both A and B branches"? That doesn't require much in the way of sophisticated concepts, it's sufficient to see it as exhaustive search, I think.

Also, what counts as "success" and what are the incentives and consequences for succeeding or failing?

Comment author: jacob_cannell 29 October 2015 05:42:10PM 0 points [-]

Consider an ordered set of two mes -- me one minute ago and me now. In which sense this set is a probability distribution? What does it mean?

In the sense that everything is - we have uncertainty over the physical configurations.

So are you arguing that future resurrections will be, basically, a brute-force approach?

No.

In the sense of "We can't be sure whether A or B happened, so we'll simulate both A and B branches"?

That's just how complex multi-modal inference works in general. The multiverse complexity comes in from realizing that it is the whole set of similar future worlds creating past simulations.

Comment author: Lumifer 29 October 2015 06:12:58PM 0 points [-]

in the sense that everything is - we have uncertainty over the physical configurations.

But this has nothing to do with physical configurations. We have a set of two things -- to make things even simpler, let's make it a rock -- that differ in time. Unless you're going to posit some Time Lord who soars above the time line, assigning probabilities to time snapshots does not make any sense to me.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit