What are your intuitions about this? It has direct implications for whether the Simulation Argument is sound.

 

Imagine two rooms, A and B. Between times t1 and t2, 100 trillion people sojourn in room A while 100 billion sojourn in room B. At any given moment, though, exactly 1 person occupies room A while 1,000 people occupy room B. At t2, you find yourself in a room, but you don't know which one. If you have to place a bet on which room it is (at t2), what do you say? Do you consider the time-slice or the history of room occupants? How do you place your bet?

 

If you bet that you're in room B, then the Simulation Argument may be flawed: there could be a fourth disjunct that Bostrom misses, namely that we become a posthuman civilization that runs a huge number of simulations yet we don't have reason for believing that we're stimulants.

 

Thoughts?

(Happy to get feedback on this! It draws from and expounds ideas in this article: http://jetpress.org/v26.2/torres.htm)

Consider a seemingly simple question: if the means were available, who exactly would destroy the world? There is surprisingly little discussion of this question within the nascent field of existential risk studies. But it’s an absolutely crucial issue: what sort of agent would either intentionally or accidentally cause an existential catastrophe?

The first step forward is to distinguish between two senses of an existential risk. Nick Bostrom originally defined the term as: “One where an adverse outcome would either annihilate Earth-originating intelligent life or permanently and drastically curtail its potential.” It follows that there are two distinct scenarios, one endurable and the other terminal, that could realize an existential risk. We can call the former an extinction risk and the latter a stagnation risk. The importance of this distinction with respect to both advanced technologies and destructive agents has been previously underappreciated.

So, the question asked above is actually two questions in disguise. Let’s consider each in turn.

Terror: Extinction Risks

First, the categories of agents who might intentionally cause an extinction catastrophe are fewer and smaller than one might think. They include:

(1) Idiosyncratic actors. These are malicious agents who are motivated by idiosyncratic beliefs and/or desires. There are instances of deranged individuals who have simply wanted to kill as many people as possible and then die, such as some school shooters. Idiosyncratic actors are especially worrisome because this category could have a large number of members (token agents). Indeed, the psychologist Martha Stout estimates that about 4 percent of the human population suffers from sociopathy, resulting in about 296 million sociopaths. While not all sociopaths are violent, a disproportionate number of criminals and dictators have (or very likely have) had the condition.

(2) Future ecoterrorists. As the effects of climate change and biodiversity loss (resulting in the sixth mass extinction) become increasingly conspicuous, and as destructive technologies become more powerful, some terrorism scholars have speculated that ecoterrorists could become a major agential risk in the future. The fact is that the climate is changing and the biosphere is wilting, and human activity is almost entirely responsible. It follows that some radical environmentalists in the future could attempt to use technology to cause human extinction, thereby “solving” the environmental crisis. So, we have some reason to believe that this category could become populated with a growing number of token agents in the coming decades.

(3) Negative utilitarians. Those who hold this view believe that the ultimate aim of moral conduct is to minimize misery, or “disutility.” Although some negative utilitarians like David Pearce see existential risks as highly undesirable, others would welcome annihilation because it would entail the elimination of suffering. It follows that if a “strong” negative utilitarian had a button in front of her that, if pressed, would cause human extinction (say, without causing pain), she would very likely press it. Indeed, on her view, doing this would be the morally right action. Fortunately, this version of negative utilitarianism is not a position that many non-academics tend to hold, and even among academic philosophers it is not especially widespread.

(4) Extraterrestrials. Perhaps we are not alone in the universe. Even if the probability of life arising on an Earth-analog is low, the vast number of exoplanets suggests that the probability of life arising somewhere may be quite high. If an alien species were advanced enough to traverse the cosmos and reach Earth, it would very likely have the technological means to destroy humanity. As Stephen Hawking once remarked, “If aliens visit us, the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didn’t turn out well for the Native Americans.”

(5) Superintelligence. The reason Homo sapiens is the dominant species on our planet is due almost entirely to our intelligence. It follows that if something were to exceed our intelligence, our fate would become inextricably bound up with its will. This is worrisome because recent research shows that even slight misalignments between our values and those motivating a superintelligence could have existentially catastrophic consequences. But figuring out how to upload human values into a machine poses formidable problems — not to mention the issue of figuring out what our values are in the first place.

Making matters worse, a superintelligence could process information at about 1 million times faster than our brains, meaning that a minute of time for us would equal approximately 2 years in time for the superintelligence. This would immediately give the superintelligence a profound strategic advantage over us. And if it were able to modify its own code, it could potentially bring about an exponential intelligence explosion, resulting in a mind that’s many orders of magnitude smarter than any human. Thus, we may have only one chance to get everything just right: there’s no turning back once an intelligence explosion is ignited.

A superintelligence could cause human extinction for a number of reasons. For example, we might simply be in its way. Few humans worry much if an ant genocide results from building a new house or road. Or the superintelligence could destroy humanity because we happen to be made out of something it could use for other purposes: atoms. Since a superintelligence need not resemble human intelligence in any way — thus, scholars tell us to resist the dual urges of anthropomorphizing and anthropopathizing — it could be motivated by goals that appear to us as utterly irrational, bizarre, or completely inexplicable.

Terror: Stagnation Risks

Now consider the agents who might intentionally try to bring about a scenario that would result in a stagnation catastrophe. This list subsumes most of the list above in that it includes idiosyncratic actors, future ecoterrorists, and superintelligence, but it probably excludes negative utilitarians, since stagnation (as understood above) would likely induce more suffering than the status quo today. The case of extraterrestrials is unclear, given that we can infer almost nothing about an interstellar civilization except that it would be technologically sophisticated.

For example, an idiosyncratic actor could harbor not a death wish for humanity, but a “destruction wish” for civilization. Thus, she or he could strive to destroy civilization without necessarily causing the annihilation of Homo sapiens. Similarly, a future ecoterrorist could hope for humanity to return to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. This is precisely what motivated Ted Kaczynski: he didn’t want everyone to die, but he did want our technological civilization to crumble. And finally, a superintelligence whose values are misaligned with ours could modify Earth in such a way that our lineage persists, but our prospects for future development are permanently compromised. Other stagnation scenarios could involve the following categories:

(6) Apocalyptic terrorists. History is overflowing with groups that not only believed the world was about to end, but saw themselves as active participants in an apocalyptic narrative that’s unfolding in realtime. Many of these groups have been driven by the conviction that “the world must be destroyed to be saved,” although some have turned their activism inward and advocated mass suicide.

Interestingly, no notable historical group has combined both the genocidal and suicidal urges. This is why apocalypticists pose a greater stagnation terror risk than extinction risk: indeed, many see their group’s survival beyond Armageddon as integral to the end-times, or eschatological, beliefs they accept. There are almost certainly less than about 2 million active apocalyptic believers in the world today, although emerging environmental, demographic, and societal conditions could cause this number to significantly increase in the future, as I’ve outlined in detail elsewhere (see Section 5 of this paper).

(7) States. Like terrorists motivated by political rather than transcendent goals, states tend to place a high value on their continued survival. It follows that states are unlikely to intentionally cause a human extinction event. But rogue states could induce a stagnation catastrophe. For example, if North Korea were to overcome the world’s superpowers through a sudden preemptive attack and implement a one-world government, the result could be an irreversible decline in our quality of life.

So, there are numerous categories of agents that could attempt to bring about an existential catastrophe. And there appear to be fewer agent types who would specifically try to cause human extinction than to merely dismantle civilization.

Error: Extinction and Stagnation Risks

There are some reasons, though, for thinking that error (rather than terror) could constitute the most significant threat in the future. First, almost every agent capable of causing intentional harm would also be capable of causing accidental harm, whether this results in extinction or stagnation. For example, an apocalyptic cult that wants to bring about Armageddon by releasing a deadly biological agent in a major city could, while preparing for this terrorist act, inadvertently contaminate its environment, leading to a global pandemic.

The same goes for idiosyncratic agents, ecoterrorists, negative utilitarians, states, and perhaps even extraterrestrials. (Indeed, the large disease burden of Europeans was a primary reason Native American populations were decimated. By analogy, perhaps an extraterrestrial destroys humanity by introducing a new type of pathogen that quickly wipes us out.) The case of superintelligence is unclear, since the relationship between intelligence and error-proneness has not been adequately studied.

Second, if powerful future technologies become widely accessible, then virtually everyone could become a potential cause of existential catastrophe, even those with absolutely no inclination toward violence. To illustrate the point, imagine a perfectly peaceful world in which not a single individual has malicious intentions. Further imagine that everyone has access to a doomsday button on her or his phone; if pushed, this button would cause an existential catastrophe. Even under ideal societal conditions (everyone is perfectly “moral”), how long could we expect to survive before someone’s finger slips and the doomsday button gets pressed?

Statistically speaking, a world populated by only 1 billion people would almost certainly self-destruct within a 10-year period if the probability of any individual accidentally pressing a doomsday button were a mere 0.00001 percent per decade. Or, alternatively: if only 500 people in the world were to gain access to a doomsday button, and if each of these individuals had a 1 percent chance of accidentally pushing the button per decade, humanity would have a meager 0.6 percent chance of surviving beyond 10 years. Thus, even if the likelihood of mistakes is infinitesimally small, planetary doom will be virtually guaranteed for sufficiently large populations.

The Two Worlds Thought Experiment

The good news is that a focus on agential risks, as I’ve called them, and not just the technological tools that agents might use to cause a catastrophe, suggests additional ways to mitigate existential risk. Consider the following thought-experiment: a possible world A contains thousands of advanced weapons that, if in the wrong hands, could cause the population of A to go extinct. In contrast, a possible world B contains only a single advanced “weapon of total destruction” (WTD). Which world is more dangerous? The answer is obviously world A.

But it would be foolishly premature to end the analysis here. Imagine further that A is populated by compassionate, peace-loving individuals, whereas B is overrun by war-mongering psychopaths. Now which world appears more likely to experience an existential catastrophe? The correct answer is, I would argue, world B.

In other words: agents matter as much as, or perhaps even more than, WTDs. One simply can’t evaluate the degree of risk in a situation without taking into account the various agents who could become coupled to potentially destructive artifacts. And this leads to the crucial point: as soon as agents enter the picture, we have another variable that could be manipulated through targeted interventions to reduce the overall probability of an existential catastrophe.

The options here are numerous and growing. One possibility would involve using “moral bioenhancement” techniques to reduce the threat of terror, given that acts of terror are immoral. But a morally enhanced individual might not be less likely to make a mistake. Thus, we could attempt to use cognitive enhancements to lower the probability of catastrophic errors, on the (tentative) assumption that greater intelligence correlates with fewer blunders.

Furthermore, implementing stricter regulations on CO2 emissions could decrease the probability of extreme ecoterrorism and/or apocalyptic terrorism, since environmental degradation is a “trigger” for both.

Another possibility, most relevant to idiosyncratic agents, is to reduce the prevalence of bullying (including cyberbullying). This is motivated by studies showing that many school shooters have been bullied, and that without this stimulus such individuals would have been less likely to carry out violent rampages. Advanced mind-reading or surveillance technologies could also enable law enforcement to identify perpetrators before mass casualty crimes are committed.

As for superintelligence, efforts to solve the “control problem” and create a friendly AI are of primary concern among many many researchers today. If successful, a friendly AI could itself constitute a powerful mitigation strategy for virtually all the categories listed above.

(Note: these strategies should be explicitly distinguished from proposals that target the relevant tools rather than agents. For example, Bostrom’s idea of “differential technological development” aims to neutralize the bad uses of technology by strategically ordering the development of different kinds of technology. Similarly, the idea of police “blue goo” to counter “grey goo” is a technology-based strategy. Space colonization is also a tool intervention because it would effectively reduce the power (or capacity) of technologies to affect the entire human or posthuman population.)

Agent-Tool Couplings

Devising novel interventions and understanding how to maximize the efficacy of known strategies requires a careful look at the unique properties of the agents mentioned above. Without an understanding of such properties, this important task will be otiose. We should also prioritize different agential risks based on the likely membership (token agents) of each category. For example, the number of idiosyncratic agents might exceed the number of ecoterrorists in the future, since ecoterrorism is focused on a single issue, whereas idiosyncratic agents could be motivated by a wide range of potential grievances.[1] We should also take seriously the formidable threat posed by error, which could be nontrivially greater than that posed by terror, as the back-of-the-envelope calculations above show.

Such considerations, in combination with technology-based risk mitigation strategies, could lead to a comprehensive, systematic framework for strategically intervening on both sides of the agent-tool coupling. But this will require the field of existential risk studies to become less technocentric than it currently is.

[1] Although, on the other hand, the stimulus of environmental degradation would be experienced by virtually everyone in society, whereas the stimuli that motivate idiosyncratic agents might be situationally unique. It’s precisely issues like these that deserve further scholarly research.

This is great, by using small interlocking magnetic fields, you can keep the water in a higher vibrational state, allowing a "super-cooling" without getting crystallization and cell rupture

Subzero 12-hour Nonfreezing Cryopreservation of Porcine Heart in a Variable Magnetic Field

"invented a special refrigerator, termed as the Cells Alive System (CAS; ABI Co. Ltd., Chiba, Japan). Through the application of a combination of multiple weak energy sources, this refrigerator generates a special variable magnetic field that causes water molecules to oscillate, thus inhibiting crystallization during ice formation18 (Figure 1). Because the entire material is frozen without the movement of water molecules, cells can be maintained intact and free of membranous damage. This refrigerator has the ability to achieve a nonfreezing state even below the solidifying point."

 

http://mobile.journals.lww.com/transplantationdirect/_layouts/15/oaks.journals.mobile/articleviewer.aspx?year=2015&issue=10000&article=00005#ath

This is the monthly thread for posting media of various types that you've found that you enjoy. Post what you're reading, listening to, watching, and your opinion of it. Post recommendations to blogs. Post whatever media you feel like discussing! To see previous recommendations, check out the older threads.

Rules:

• Please avoid downvoting recommendations just because you don't personally like the recommended material; remember that liking is a two-place word. If you can point out a specific flaw in a person's recommendation, consider posting a comment to that effect.
• If you want to post something that (you know) has been recommended before, but have another recommendation to add, please link to the original, so that the reader has both recommendations.
• Please post only under one of the already created subthreads, and never directly under the parent media thread.
• Use the "Other Media" thread if you believe the piece of media you want to discuss doesn't fit under any of the established categories.
• Use the "Meta" thread if you want to discuss about the monthly media thread itself (e.g. to propose adding/removing/splitting/merging subthreads, or to discuss the type of content properly belonging to each subthread) or for any other question or issue you may have about the thread or the rules.

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, then it goes here.

---

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)

3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

4. Unflag the two options "Notify me of new top level comments on this article" and "Make this post available under..." before submitting.

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, then it goes here.

---

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)

3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

4. Unflag the two options "Notify me of new top level comments on this article" and "Make this post available under..." before submitting.

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, then it goes here.

---

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)

3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

4. Unflag the two options "Notify me of new top level comments on this article" and "Make this post available under..." before submitting.

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, then it goes here.

---

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)

3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

4. Unflag the two options "Notify me of new top level comments on this article" and "Make this post available under..." before submitting.

Recently Phil Torres wrote an article  where he raises a new topic in existential risks research: the question about who could be possible agents in the creation of a global catastrophe. Here he identifies five main types of agents, and two main reasons why they will create a catastrophe (error and terror).  

He discusses the following types of agents: 

 

(1) Superintelligence. 

(2) Idiosyncratic actors.  

(3) Ecoterrorists.  

(4) Religious terrorists.  

(5) Rogue states.  

 

Inspired by his work I decided to create a map of all possible agents as well as their possible reasons for creating x-risks. During this work some new ideas appeared.  

I think that a significant addition to the list of agents should be superpowers, as they are known to have created most global risks in the 20th century; corporations, as they are now on the front line of AGI creation; and pseudo-rational agents who could create a Doomsday weapon in the future to use for global blackmail (may be with positive values), or who could risk civilization’s fate for their own benefits (dangerous experiments). 

The X-risks prevention community could also be an agent of risks if it fails to prevent obvious risks, or if it uses smaller catastrophes to prevent large risks, or if it creates new dangerous ideas of possible risks which could inspire potential terrorists.  

The more technology progresses, the more types of agents will have access to dangerous technologies, even including teenagers. (like: "Why This 14-Year-Old Kid Built a Nuclear Reactor” ) 

In this situation only the number of agents with risky tech will matter, not the exact motivations of each one. But if we are unable to control tech, we could try to control potential agents or their “medium" mood at least. 

The map shows various types of agents, starting from non-agents, and ending with types of agential behaviors which could result in catastrophic consequences (error, terror, risk etc). It also shows the types of risks that are more probable for each type of agent. I think that my explanation in each case should be self evident. 

We could also show that x-risk agents will change during the pace of technological progress. In the beginning there are no agents, and later there are superpowers, and then smaller and smaller agents, until there will be millions of people with biotech labs at home. In the end there will be only one agent - SuperAI.  

So, a lessening the number of agents, and increasing their ”morality” and intelligence seem to be the most plausible directions in lowering risks. Special organizations or social networks may be created to control the most risky type of agents. Differing agents probably need differing types of control. Some ideas of this agent-specific control are listed in the map, but a real control system should be much more complex and specific.

The map shows many agents, some of them real and exist now (but don’t have dangerous capabilities), and some are only possible in moral sense or in technical sense.

 

So there are 4 types of agents, and I show them in the map in different colours:

 

1) Existing and dangerous, that is already having technology to destroy the humanity. That is superpowers, arrogant scientists – Red

2) Existing, and willing to end the world, but lacking needed technologies. (ISIS, VHEMt) - Yellow

3) Morally possible, but don’t existing. We could imagine logically consistent value systems which may result in human extinction. That is Doomsday blackmail. - Green

4) Agents, which will pose risk only after supertechnologies appear, like AI-hackers, children biohackers. - Blue

 

Many agents types are not fit for this classification so I rest them white in the map. 

 

The pdf of the map is here: http://immortality-roadmap.com/agentrisk11.pdf

 

 

 

 

(The jpg of the map is below because side bar is closing part of it I put it higher)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(The jpg of the map is below because side bar is closing part of it I put it higher)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A putative new idea for AI control; index here.

The counterfactual approach to value learning could be used to possibly allow natural language goals for AIs.

The basic idea is that when the AI is given a natural language goal like "increase human happiness" or "implement CEV", it is not to figure out what these goals mean, but to follow what a pure learning algorithm would establish these goals as meaning.

This would be safer than a simple figure-out-the-utility-you're-currently-maximising approach. But it still doesn't solve a few drawbacks. Firstly, the learning algorithm has to be effective itself (in particular, modifying human understanding of the words should be ruled out, and the learning process must avoid concluding the simpler interpretations are always better). And secondly, humans' don't yet know what these words mean, outside our usual comfort zone, so the "learning" task also involves the AI extrapolating beyond what we know.

Time start: 14:40:36

I

You might be familiar with the concept of a 'bug', as introduced by CFAR. By using the computer programming analogy, it frames any problem you might have in your life as something fixable... even more - as something to be fixed, something such that fixing it or thinking about how to fix it is the first thing that comes to mind when you see such a problem, or 'bug'.

Let's try another analogy in the same style, with something called 'race conditions' in programming. A race condition as a particular type of bug, that is typically very hard to find and fix ('debug'). It occurs when two or more parts of the same program 'race' to access some data, resource, decision point etc., in a way that is not controlled by any organised principle.

For example, imagine that you have a document open in an editor program. You make some changes, you give a command to save the file. While this operation is in progress, you drag and drop the same file in a file manager, moving to another hard drive. In this case, depending on timing, on the details of the programs, and on the operating system that you are using, you might get different results. The old version of the file might be moved to the new location, while the new one is saved in the old location. Or the file might get saved first, and then moved. Or the saving operation will end in an error, or in a truncated or otherwise malformed file on the disk.

If you know enough details about the situation, you could in fact work out what exactly would happen. But the margin of error in your own handling of the software is so big, that you cannot in practice do this (e.g. you'd need to know the exact milisecond when you press buttons etc.). So in practice, the outcome is random, depending on how the events play out on a scale smaller that you can directly control (e.g. minute differences in timing, strength of reactions etc.).

II

What is the analogy in humans? One of the places in which when you look hard, you'll see this pattern a lot is the relation of emotions and conscious decision making.

E.g., a classic failure mode is a "commitment to emotions", which goes like this:

• I promise to love you forever
• however if I commit to this, I will have doubts and less freedom, which will generate negative emotions
• so I'll attempt to fall in love faster than my doubts grow
• let's do this anyway, why won't we?

The problem here is a typical emotional "race condition": there is a lot of variability in the outcome, depending on how events play out. There could be a "butterfly effect", in which e.g. a single weekend trip together could determine the fate of the relationship, by creating a swing up or down, which would give one side of emotions a head start in the race.

III

Another typical example is making a decision about continuing a relationship:

• when I spend time with you, I like you more
• when I like you more, I want to continue our relationship
• when we have a relationship, I spend more time with you

As you can see, there is a loop in decision process. This cannot possibly end well.

A wild emotional rollercoaster is probably around the least bad outcome of this setup.

IV

So how do you fix race conditions?

By creating structure.

By following principles which compute the result explicitly, without unwanted chaotic behaviour.

By removing loops from decision graphs.

First and foremost, by recognizing that leaving a decision to a race condition is strictly worse than any decision process that we consciously design, even if this process is flipping the coin (at least you know the odds!).

Example: deciding to continue the relationship.

Proposed solution (arrow represent influence):

(1) controlled, long-distance emotional evaluation -> (2) systemic decision -> (3) day-to-day emotions

The idea is to remove the loop by organising emotions into tho groups: those that are directly influenced by the decision or its consequences (3), and more distant "evaluation" emotions (1). A possibility to feel emotions as in (1) can be created by pre-deciding a time to have some time alone and judge the situation from more distance, e.g. "after 6 months of this relationship I will go for a 2 week vacation to by aunt in France, and think about it in a clear-headed way, making sure I consider emotions about the general picture, not day-to-day things like physical affection etc.".

V

There is much to write on this topic, so please excuse my brevity (esp. in the last part, giving some examples of systemic thinking about emotions) - there is easily enough content about this to fill a book (or two). But I hope I gave you some idea.

Time end: 15:15:42

Writing stats: 31 minutes, 23 wpm, 133 cpm

This summary was posted to LW Main on October 21st. The following week's summary is here.

New meetups (or meetups with a hiatus of more than a year) are happening in:

• Zürich social Rationality meetup: 29 October 2016 05:00PM

Irregularly scheduled Less Wrong meetups are taking place in:

• Munich Meetup in October: 29 October 2016 04:00PM
• Stockholm: Mental contrasting: 21 October 2016 04:00PM

The remaining meetups take place in cities with regular scheduling, but involve a change in time or location, special meeting content, or simply a helpful reminder about the meetup:

• Bay Area Winter Solstice 2016: 17 December 2016 07:00PM
• [Moscow] Games in Kocherga club: FallacyMania, Tower of Chaos, Scientific Discovery: 26 October 2016 07:40PM
• NY Solstice 2016 - The Story of Smallpox: 17 December 2016 06:00PM
• San Francisco Meetup: Stories: 24 October 2016 06:15PM
• Washington, D.C.: Technology of Communication: 23 October 2016 03:30PM

Locations with regularly scheduled meetups: Austin, Berlin, Boston, Brussels, Buffalo, Canberra, Columbus, Denver, Kraków, London, Madison WI, Melbourne, Moscow, New Hampshire, New York, Philadelphia, Research Triangle NC, San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle, St. Petersburg, Sydney, Tel Aviv, Toronto, Vienna, Washington DC, and West Los Angeles. There's also a 24/7 online study hall for coworking LWers and a Slack channel for daily discussion and online meetups on Sunday night US time.

This summary was posted to LW Main on September 30th. The following week's summary is here.

Irregularly scheduled Less Wrong meetups are taking place in:

• Stockholm: When to stop making a decision: 07 October 2016 03:00PM

The remaining meetups take place in cities with regular scheduling, but involve a change in time or location, special meeting content, or simply a helpful reminder about the meetup:

• Bay Area Winter Solstice 2016: 17 December 2016 07:00PM
• Melbourne: A Bayesian Guide on How to Read a Scientific Paper: 08 October 2016 03:30PM
• Sydney Rationality Dojo - October 2016: 02 October 2016 04:00PM

Locations with regularly scheduled meetups: Austin, Berlin, Boston, Brussels, Buffalo, Canberra, Columbus, Denver, Kraków, London, Madison WI, Melbourne, Moscow, New Hampshire, New York, Philadelphia, Research Triangle NC, San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle, Sydney, Tel Aviv, Toronto, Vienna, Washington DC, and West Los Angeles. There's also a 24/7 online study hall for coworking LWers and a Slack channel for daily discussion and online meetups on Sunday night US time.

New meetups (or meetups with a hiatus of more than a year) are happening in:

• Zürich social Rationality meetup: 29 October 2016 05:00PM

Irregularly scheduled Less Wrong meetups are taking place in:

• Munich Meetup in October: 29 October 2016 04:00PM
• Stockholm: Bottlenecks to trading personal resources: 11 November 2016 05:15PM

The remaining meetups take place in cities with regular scheduling, but involve a change in time or location, special meeting content, or simply a helpful reminder about the meetup:

• Bay Area Winter Solstice 2016: 17 December 2016 07:00PM
• Moscow: rational review, status quo bias, interpersonal closeness: 30 October 2016 02:00PM
• NY Solstice 2016 - The Story of Smallpox: 17 December 2016 06:00PM
• San Francisco Meetup: Board Games: 31 October 2016 06:15PM
• Washington, D.C.: Halloween Party: 30 October 2016 03:00PM

Locations with regularly scheduled meetups: Austin, Berlin, Boston, Brussels, Buffalo, Canberra, Columbus, Denver, Kraków, London, Madison WI, Melbourne, Moscow, New Hampshire, New York, Philadelphia, Research Triangle NC, San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle, St. Petersburg, Sydney, Tel Aviv, Toronto, Vienna, Washington DC, and West Los Angeles. There's also a 24/7 online study hall for coworking LWers and a Slack channel for daily discussion and online meetups on Sunday night US time.

Can someone help me dissolve this, and give insight into how to proceed with someone who says this?

 

What are they saying, exactly? That the set of beliefs in their head that they use to make decisions is not the same set of beliefs that you use to make decisions?

 

Could I say something like "Yes, that's so, but how do you know that your truth matches what is in the real world? Is there some way to know that your truth isn't only true for you, and not actually true for everybody?"

 

I'm trying to get a feel for what they mean by "true" in this case, since it's obviously not "matching reality."

This summary was posted to LW Main on October 14th. The following week's summary is here.

Irregularly scheduled Less Wrong meetups are taking place in:

• Stockholm: Trigger-Action Plans: 14 October 2016 05:00PM

The remaining meetups take place in cities with regular scheduling, but involve a change in time or location, special meeting content, or simply a helpful reminder about the meetup:

• Bay Area Winter Solstice 2016: 17 December 2016 07:00PM
• San Francisco Meetup: Rationality Diary: 17 October 2016 06:15PM
• Washington, D.C.: Fun & Games: 16 October 2016 03:30PM

Locations with regularly scheduled meetups: Austin, Berlin, Boston, Brussels, Buffalo, Canberra, Columbus, Denver, Kraków, London, Madison WI, Melbourne, Moscow, New Hampshire, New York, Philadelphia, Research Triangle NC, San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle, St. Petersburg, Sydney, Tel Aviv, Toronto, Vienna, Washington DC, and West Los Angeles. There's also a 24/7 online study hall for coworking LWers and a Slack channel for daily discussion and online meetups on Sunday night US time.

This summary was posted to LW Main on October 7th. The following week's summary is here.

Irregularly scheduled Less Wrong meetups are taking place in:

• Stockholm: When to stop making a decision: 07 October 2016 03:00PM

The remaining meetups take place in cities with regular scheduling, but involve a change in time or location, special meeting content, or simply a helpful reminder about the meetup:

• Baltimore Area / UMBC Weekly Meetup: 09 October 2016 08:00PM
• Bay Area Winter Solstice 2016: 17 December 2016 07:00PM
• Melbourne: A Bayesian Guide on How to Read a Scientific Paper: 08 October 2016 03:30PM
• Moscow: rational review, bias busters, Kolmogorov and Jayes probability: 09 October 2016 02:00PM
• Washington, D.C.: Games Discussion: 09 October 2016 03:30PM

Locations with regularly scheduled meetups: Austin, Berlin, Boston, Brussels, Buffalo, Canberra, Columbus, Denver, Kraków, London, Madison WI, Melbourne, Moscow, New Hampshire, New York, Philadelphia, Research Triangle NC, San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle, Sydney, Tel Aviv, Toronto, Vienna, Washington DC, and West Los Angeles. There's also a 24/7 online study hall for coworking LWers and a Slack channel for daily discussion and online meetups on Sunday night US time.

I have a philosophical theory which implies some things empirically about quantum physics, and I was wondering if anyone knowledgeable on the subject could give me some insight.

It goes something like this:

As an anathema to reductionists, quarks (and by "quarks" I just mean, whatever are the fundamental particles of the universe) are not governed by simple rules a la conway's game of life, but rather, like all of metaphysics goes into their behavior.

The reductionist basically reduces metaphysics to the simple rules that govern quarks. Fundamentally there is no other identity or causality, everything else is just emergent from that, anything we want to call "real" that we deal with in ordinary experience, does not have any metaphysical identity or causal efficacy of its own, it's just an illusion produced by tons of atoms bouncing around. If the universe is akin to conway's game of life, then I don't think the things we see around us are actually what we think they are. They don't have any real identity on a metaphysical level, but rather they are just patterns of particles in motion, governed by mathematically simple rules.

But suppose there actually is metaphysical identity and causal power in the things around us, well the place I can see for that, is that the unknown rules governing quarks, are not mathematically simple rules, but literally that's where all of metaphysics is contained, quarks entangle together according to high level concepts corresponding to the things we see around us, including a person's identity, and have not the mathematically simple causal powers like conway's game of life, but the causal powers of the identity of the high-level agent.

The empirical question is this: do we observe the fundamental particles of the universe behaving according mathematically simple rules, or do they seem to behave in complex/unpredictable ways depending on how they are entangled / what they are interacting with?

 

Adding an example to clarify:

The behavior of the quarks corresponds to the identity of the things we see around us. The things we see around us are constituted by quarks - but the question is, are these quarks behaving mindlessly as billiard balls, or is their behavior the result of complex rules corresponding to the identity of the thing they form?

In other words, suppose we're talking about a living ant, are the quarks which constitute that ant behaving according to simple mathematical rules like billiard balls, and the whole concept of there being an "ant" is just an illusion produced by these particles bouncing around, or are these quarks constituting the ant actually behaving "ant-like"?

Is the causal behavior of the ant determined by the billiard-ball interactions of quarks bouncing around, or does the causal behavior actually originate in the identity of the ant, with the quark interactions being decided according to its nature?

What I'm saying is that there metaphysically is such a thing as an ant, when quarks "get together as an ant", they behave differently, they behave ant-like. Given there is a lot of unknown on exactly why quarks behave the way they do, why is this ruled out: that when they "get together as an ant", they behave ant-like?

Basically the idea is, when it comes to the interactions of the quarks constituting the ant with the quarks constituting the things the ant interacts with, the behavior of those interactions is determined not by simple, universal rules of quark behavior, but by the rules of quark behavior that are in effect "when the quarks are an ant".

To further clarify this example:

This is framed in general terms, because I don't actually know any quantum physics, but I'm talking about the fundamental physical particles ("quarks", for lack of a better term), and their behavior at the quantum level - behavior which we don't fully understand. So one could say in general terms, sometimes the quarks "swerve left" and other times they "swerve right", and we don't exactly know why they do that in any given case.

So the question is, suppose the behavior of quarks in general is not determined by simple, universal laws of quark behavior, e.g. "always swerve left 50% of the time", but rather, there are metaphysically real and physically meaningful "quark groups", like if a bunch of quarks are entangled together in a group constituting what we'd observe to be an ant, then quarks in that quark group behave differently. So for example, the quarks in that "ant quark group" might always swerve left when they interact with another quark group of a different kind.

It's a story about a boy who is into science and transhumanism, and a girl he told about all these crazy things that were going to happen. He dies and all of the things he said started to happen. She ended up floating around Saturn remembering him.

Either he or she was in the wheelchair. He was dying and he was disappointed he was dying because of all the cool stuff that was going to happen that she was going to be around for, and some of it had to do with whatever problem she had that was going to get fixed.

Please help me find this story if you can.