= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
PhD programs in mathematics, statistics, philosophy, and theoretical computer science tend to give you a great deal of free time and flexibility, provided you can pass the various qualifying exams without too much studying.
Bolding the parts to which I object.
I have never seen anyone in a rigorous postgraduate program who had a lot of free time and could pass their quals without large amounts of studying.
Of course, I could just be, like magic, on the lower part of the intelligence curve for graduate school, but given that my actual measured IQ numbers are pretty in-the-middle for scientific academia (I won't tell what they are, though), and given that almost everyone else says they have little free time and have to study hard in graduate school, I'm inclined to believe the bolded phrases only accurately describe a narrow slice of lucky individuals.
Quals are the GRE, right?
If a gap is about very important feature or a secret event, it could be two completely different people. Like if we don't know if a person of interest was a gay.
...Okay? One in ten sampled individuals will be gay. You can do that. Does it really matter when you're resurrecting the dead?
Your own proposal is to only sample one, and call the inaccuracy "acausal trade," which isn't even necessary in this case. The AI is missing 100 bits. You're already admitting many-worlds. So the AI can simply draw those 100 bits out of quantum randomness, and in each Everett branch, there will be a different individual. The incorrect ones you could call "acausal travelers," even though you're just wrong. There will still be the "correct" individual, the exact descendant of this reality's instance, in one of the Everett branches. The fact that it is "correct" doesn't even matter, there is only ever "close enough," but the "correct" one is there.
If we don't know 100 bits of information, we need to create 2 power 100 copies to fill all gaps. Even for FAI it may be difficult. Also it may be unpleasant to the copies themselves, as it would delude their value to outside world.
What's wrong with gaps? This is probabilistic in the first place.
It could be solved by acasual trading between parallel worlds. I tried to explain it in the map under the title that DI stalks well with many world immortality.
If we have infinitely many worlds with the same evidence about the person ( but the person is different in different world, only the evidence is the same), we could create only one resurrection in each world which is in agreement with this evidence, AND it will be exact resurrection of the person from another world.
BUT, the person from this world will be exact resurrected in the another world, so each person will have exact resurrection in some world, and each world will have only one person which much its evidence. (So, no problems with ethics and resources.)
I think that it may be difficult to explain this in several lines, but I hope you grasp the idea. If it is not clear I could try better explanation.
No, that's easy to grasp. I just wonder what the point is. Conservation of resources?
We could solve it if we move from binary idea of identity, which only can be 0 or 1, me or not me, to continuous idea of identity, which could have many gradation. In this case we should ask how similar the copy will be to the original or what is the probability that I find my self in the next moment to be that copy. The main problems with identity is that it is wrong notion. It assumes that set of all possible observer is divided on many subset of observers, which are identical inside that subsets. But the idea identity is only useful to answer questions like "what I will feel in next moment". Most such question could be answered without binary conception of identity. Any way I suggest ti stick for now to conservative approach to identity problem - see comment above.
In case of DI, we should collect as much information as possible.
The evidence provided of any dead person produces a distribution on human brains, given enough computation. The more evidence there is, the more focused the distribution. Given post-scarcity, the FAI could simply produce many samples on each distribution.
This is certainly a clever way of producing mind-neighbors. I find problems with these sorts of schemes for resurrection, though. Socioeconomic privilege, tragedy of the commons, and data rot, to be precise.
Saying that it's important doesn't mean it's simple.
You're confusing the intuitive notion of "simple" with "low Kolmogorov complexity". For example, the Mandelbrot set is "complicated" in the intuitive sense, but has low Kolmogorov complexity since it can be constructed by a simple process.
What do you mean by "short referent?" Yes, it will likely be an often-used concept, so the internal symbol signifying the concept is likely to be short, but that says absolutely nothing about the complexity of the concept itself.
It does if you look at the rest of my argument.
If you want to say that "agentiness" is a K-simple concept, perhaps you should demonstrate that by explicating a precise computational definition for an agent detector,
Step 1: Stimulation the universe for a sufficiently long time.
Step 2: Ask the entity now filling up the universe "is this an agent?".
Thus reducing entropy globally must have low Kolmogorov complexity.
What do you mean by that statement? Kolmogorov complexity is a property of a concept. Well "reducing entropy" as a concept does have low Kolmogorov complexity.
You're confusing the intuitive notion of "simple" with "low Kolmogorov complexity"
I am using the word "simple" to refer to "low K-complexity." That is the context of this discussion.
It does if you look at the rest of my argument.
The rest of your argument is fundamentally misinformed.
Step 1: Stimulation the universe for a sufficiently long time.
Step 2: Ask the entity now filling up the universe "is this an agent?".
Simulating the universe to identify an agent is the exact opposite of a short referent. Anyway, even if simulating a universe were tractable, it does not provide a low complexity for identifying agents in the first place. Once you're done specifying all of and only the universes where filling all of space with computronium is both possible and optimal, all of and only the initial conditions in which an AGI will fill the universe with computronium, and all of and only the states of those universes where they are actually filled with computronium, you are then left with the concept of universe-filling AGIs, not agents.
You seem to be attempting to say that a descriptor of agents would be simple because the physics of our universe is simple. Again, the complexity of the transition function and the complexity of the configuration states are different. If you do not understand this, then everything that follows from this is bad argumentation.
What do you mean by that statement? Kolmogorov complexity is a property of a concept. Well "reducing entropy" as a concept does have low Kolmogorov complexity.
It is framed after your own argument, as you must be aware. Forgive me, for I too closely patterned it after your own writing. "For an AGI to be successful it is going to have to be good at reducing entropy globally. Thus reducing entropy globally must be possible." That is false, just as your own argument for a K-simple general agent specification is false. It is perfectly possible that an AGI will not need to be good at recognizing agents to be successful, or that an AGI that can recognize agents generally is not possible. To show that it is, you have to give a simple algorithm, which your universe-filling algorithm is not.
Kolmogorov's, which is of course the actual reason for my initial "k"s.
It reminded me of reading Simpsons comics, is all.
the whole "a godless universe has low Kolmogorov complexity" argument that you're trying to make.
It might, perhaps, if I were actually trying to make that argument. But so far as I can see no one is claiming here that the universe has low komplexity. (All the atheistic argument needs is for the godless version of the universe to have lower komplexity than the godded one.)
all the universes that can support life are likely to wind up taken over by AGIs.
Even if so, you still have the locate-the-relevant-bit problem. (Even if you can just say "pick any universe", you have to find the relevant bit within that universe.) It's also not clear to me that locating universes suitable for life within something like the Tegmark multiverse is low-komplexity.
the AGI can. [...] it's likely to have a short referent to it.
An easy-to-use one, perhaps, but I see no guarantee that it'll be something easy to identify for others, which is what's relevant.
Consider humans; we're surely much simpler than a universe-spanning AGI (and also more likely to have a concept that nicely matches the human concept of "agent"; perhaps a universe-spanning AGI would instead have some elaborate range of "agent"-like concepts making fine distinctions we don't see or don't appreciate; but never mind that). Could you specify how to tell, using a human brain, whether something is an agent? (Recall that for komplexity-measuring purposes, if you do so by means of language or something then the komplexity of that language is part of the cost you pay. In fact, it's worse; you need to specify how to work out that language by looking at human brains. Similarly, if you want to say "look at the neurons located here", the thing you need to pay the komplexity-cost of is not just specifying "here" but specifying how to find "here" in a way that works for any possible human-like thing.)
Krusty's Komplexity Kalkulator!
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I think that there is 3 option in case of incomplete information.
I suggest to choose variant 2. In this case everybody is happy. The subject is almost exactly resurrected in one of the universes. Each universe get a person which corresponds its conditions and do not get useless semi-copies of the subject.
That is a false trichotomy. You're perfectly capable of deciding to resurrect some sparse coverage of the distribution, and those differences are not useless. In addition, "the subject is almost exactly resurrected in one of the universes" is true of both two and three, and you don't have to refer to spooky alternate histories to do it in the first place.