= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
How would I contact a version of me in another branch? It isn't me at all anymore. You can receive and experience permanent brain damage, so why would a death experience be any different? And what about sleep? If this was true it seems like you wouldn't be able to let go of any of your mental faculties at all.
It isn't me at all anymore.
There will be a "thread" of subjective experience that identifies with the state of you now no matter what insult or degeneration you experience. I assumed you were pro-teleporter. If you're not why are you even worried about dust theory?
Erm, you mean his argument that we would expect to find ourselves in a more chaotic universe? Well, it might be that such observers are less 'dense' than ones in a stable universe (I never grasped the mathematics of it), and if that's the case than I don't see how the argument works. But then the opposite problem applies- our universe is far too complex, and relies upon contingencies that are highly improbable, merely for observers to exist. The only solution for the 'Big World' is that universes like these have a high-base rate, and that this really is the most common type of scenario that produces life. But that can't save Dust Theory, and probably not Ultimate Ensemble either.
On the other hand, if Egan is right, losing mental awareness in a chaotic universe could have the opposite effect of what I first thought- propelling you into more stable worlds by virtue of your continued existence. This may explain our current observations. But that's a very cloudy line of thinking. Maybe such beings "join" with sleeping human infants if the observations match theirs. But still, this universe seems too stable; why would they have defaulted to this one? And why would the most common type of observer be similar enough to human even to have that much in common?
I'm pretty sure someone who knows what they're talking about could put this question to rest. But no one here will even understand it.
Well, it might be that such observers are less 'dense' than ones in a stable universe
In that case most of your measure is in stable universes and dust theory isn't anything to worry about.
But that can't be the case, as isn't the whole point of dust theory that basically any set of relations can be construed as a computation implementing your subjective experience, and this experience is self-justifying? If that's the case the majority of your measure must be dust.
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.
That doesn't seem very air tight. There is still a world where a "you" survives or avoids all forms of degradation. It doesn't matter if it's non-binary. There are worlds were you never crossed the street without looking and very, very, very, very improbable worlds where you heal progressively. It's probably not pleasant but it is immortality.
Few people know about Dust Theory, even fewer understand it intuitively.
Dust theory is beautiful and terrifying, but what do you say to Egan's argument against it: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/PERMUTATION/FAQ/FAQ.html
In response to
I need a protocol for dangerous or disconcerting ideas.
Do you have a link to Max Tegmark's rebuttal? What I've read so far seemed like a confused dodge.
In response to
Open Thread, May 25 - May 31, 2015
If you're interested in robotics, this video is a must see: https://youtu.be/EtMyH_--vnU?t=32m34s
I have to say I'm baffled. I was genuinely shocked watching the thing. Its speed is incredible. I remember writing off general robots after closely following Willow Robotics' Work. That was only three years ago. Again, I'm pretty shocked.
In response to
Open Thread, May 25 - May 31, 2015
This forum doesn't allow you to comment if you have <2 karma. How does one get their first 2 karma then?
In response to
Open Thread, May 18 - May 24, 2015
What changes would LW require to make itself attractive again to the major contributors who left and now have their own blogs?
I doubt there's much to be done. I wouldn't be surprised if MIRI shut down LessWrong soon. It's something of a status drain because of the whole Roko thing and no one seems to use it anymore. Even the open threads seem to be losing steam.
We still get most of the former value from the SlateStarCodex, Gwern.net, and the tumblr scene. Even for rationality, I'm not sure LessWrong is needed now that we have CFAR.
In response to
Open thread, Jan. 12 - Jan. 18, 2015
In the vein of asking personal questions of Less Wrong, I need career advice. Or advice on finding useful career advice.
I'm an undergraduate student, my course is "Mathematics & Theoretical Physics", BSc, but I'm already convinced I don't want to try to be a career scientist. Long-term, my career goals are to retire early (I've felt comfortable enough on what I live on as a student that the MrMoneyMustache approach seems eminently doable), with the actual terminal values involved being enjoyment and lack of stress, so becoming a quant also seems like a bad choice what with having to get a PhD first. Teaching just sounds horrible to me.
What this leaves me with is the much broader range of careers that are either mathematical or sciencey enough that I could use the degree for them, or the jobs and graduate programs that just ask for a degree and don't care what kind. I have too many choices, every particular one I look at seems okay but not great, I have no idea how to even begin narrowing them down or ordering them.
If you’re looking for a useful major, Computer science is the obvious choice. I also think statistics majors are undersupplied, though only anecdotal data there. I know a few stats majors (none overly clever) that have done far more with the degree than I would have guessed as an undergraduate. But this could have changed since, markets being anti-inductive. If your goal is effective egotism, you’re probably not in the best major. Probably the best way to go about your goal is to follow the advice of effective altruists and then donate all the money to your future self, via a Vanguard fund. If this sounds too evil, paying a small tithe, 1%, would more than make up for this at a managable cost.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Not necessarily to you. It doesn't have to make much sense to you at all. But our observations are orderly, and that is something that can't be explained by the majority of our measure being dust. Why would it default to this?
If you make Egan's assumption, I think it is an extremely strong argument.
Why don't you buy it?