Comment author: gryffinp 25 April 2013 03:30:22PM 5 points [-]

Colbert: So I can live forever, but later. So I just need to live long enough for later to become now.

That's the plan Stephen. That's the plan.

Here's the Comedy Central video, but if it's blocked in your country, here's a somewhat crappy youtube recording of same.

Comment author: Lukas_Gloor 17 April 2013 08:54:41PM 1 point [-]

Therefore, in this scenario, every human being would have a solemn duty to make the world as interesting as possible.

Great post but this is where you lost me. I have a hard time prioritzing "interesting" over reducing suffering, and I find it repugnant that some beings created a universe where quintillions of sentient creatures have been suffering and dying for half a billion years on this planet alone. OK, maybe the creators had the decency to "shortcut" all the suffering so it wasn't actually experienced, that's the upside of the thought.

Hmm, that makes for a good religion too, you only remember the suffering, but during the actual moments you were zombified, you're misremembering!

Comment author: gryffinp 17 April 2013 10:51:25PM 0 points [-]

I find it repugnant that some beings created a universe where quintillions of sentient creatures have been suffering and dying for half a billion years on this planet alone.

Isn't that an inevitable conclusion of the basic "the universe is a simulation" premise?

Comment author: Nornagest 17 April 2013 09:47:09PM 1 point [-]

It seems to me that if you were going to create a universal simulation, you would do it because you wanted to see what would happen inside. And we humans have a rather strong attachment to existing, so we should try to continue that state of affairs as far as possible. Therefore, in this scenario, every human being would have a solemn duty to make the world as interesting as possible.

That seems to share some ideas with Neal Stephenson's fictional religion of Kelx, as described in Anathem.

Comment author: gryffinp 17 April 2013 10:36:43PM *  0 points [-]

Ah. This one, I've read.

Thank you by the way, I had actually remembered about that as I was typing this up (In a sort of "Speaking of Religions with unusual premises..." way), but forgotten what it was called and who came up with it. I had speculated that it might have been from a Heinlein novel, since the half-remembered premise of "lone protagonist is saved from arctic peril and then gets to listen to someone politely explain their philosophy" sounded vaguely Heinleinish.

Comment author: CarlShulman 17 April 2013 06:57:41AM *  6 points [-]

Robin Hanson has written on this topic.

Comment author: gryffinp 17 April 2013 12:42:32PM 1 point [-]

Huh. I'm certain that I hadn't read this before.

Obviously he gave it a little more thought than my own shower-musings received.

Comment author: gryffinp 17 April 2013 05:43:13AM 7 points [-]

You know, I was musing on the "Universe as Matrix" idea a while back, and I came to some interesting conclusions.

I realized first that, given sufficiently attentive creator(s), any attempt to prove that the Universe was a simulation must inevitably fail. Because if if such a proof were found, the proverbial Dark Lords could simply pause the sim, patch out the error that revealed the discrepancy, and roll back to before it was revealed. Similarly, proof that we weren't in a Matrix should be equally impossible, since any evidence that proved the impossibility could simply be falsified by the system to maintain the illusion.

At this point my train of thought went on to a different track: if we did know that we were living in a simulated universe, what should we do about it? After some pondering, I concluded that we would have spent all of our existence living in the sim anyway, so I wouldn't see much need for massive upheavals of human life. And if the Dark Lords were indeed trying to enforce a "realistic" simulation, then attempting to communicate with them would be fruitless, since they would not respond. But...

For whatever reason, the creators would have created this universe. It seems to me that if you were going to create a universal simulation, you would do it because you wanted to see what would happen inside. And we humans have a rather strong attachment to existing, so we should try to continue that state of affairs as far as possible. Therefore, in this scenario, every human being would have a solemn duty to make the world as interesting as possible.

It was at that moment that I realized that I had created a religion.

Comment author: someonewrongonthenet 16 April 2013 05:34:09AM *  0 points [-]

The Sequences: How to Become Less Wrong

I'm actually in favor of keeping "The Sequences" in the title. "Rationality" is unfortunately a vague term for most people, and might even turn off some. There are several routes other than "catchy" - for ascetic purposes it's okay to be a little esoteric. The Sequences sounds like part of something mysterious and important. Plus it fits nicely with Eliezer Yudkowski's Bayesian Conspiracy motif.

Comment author: gryffinp 16 April 2013 05:56:54AM 4 points [-]

I really dislike "The Sequences: How to become Less Wrong." The problem I have with it is that I think it misrepresents what one of titular sequences actually is. The impression I receive is that this book offers some step by step instructions, known as the Mysterious and Capitalized "Sequences" that will improve your life and make you a better person.

...ok so maybe it's not that far off but the point I'm trying to make here is: A book that advertises itself that way doesn't sound legitimate. It gives me an impression of belonging to the "self-help book" category, which has a fairly bad reputation. If I saw a book with that title in a book store, I'd probably smirk at it and move on. Whereas I think that beginning the title with "Rationality" gives it a more scientific air. And I ah e to imagine that the idea here is that the cover of the book should reflect the contents as usefully as possible.

Comment author: DanielLC 07 March 2013 11:48:29PM 0 points [-]

Kinetic Novel. I didn't know that was a thing until you mentioned it just now.

Comment author: gryffinp 11 March 2013 04:22:59AM 0 points [-]

Based on the Wikipedia definition of "kinetic novel" I almost feel like the two terms should be reversed.

Comment author: Manfred 10 March 2013 11:36:10AM 0 points [-]

Kids are reading the same sort of stuff they were 17 years ago.

Comment author: gryffinp 11 March 2013 04:21:24AM 1 point [-]

...So what were preteens reading 17 years ago?

Comment author: scav 08 February 2013 04:34:50PM 0 points [-]

OK thanks.

I don't know why I didn't see it - I tried searching the page for Icarus before posting :(

Comment author: gryffinp 15 February 2013 08:55:05PM 0 points [-]

Well, that post was from the January thread. If you only Control-F'd this page, then it wouldn't have come up.

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 02 February 2013 04:18:25AM 4 points [-]

Shoot them?

Comment author: gryffinp 02 February 2013 10:32:43AM 31 points [-]

I think you just independently invented the holy war.

View more: Next