Constructively, (not ((not A) and (not B))) is weaker than (A or B). While you could call the former "A or B", you then have to come up with a new name for the latter.

The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect. The chapters aren't in chronological order; the bootstrapping and power leveling happen in chapters two and four.

No. To get the 1/3 probability you have to assume that she would be just as likely to say what she says if she had 1 boy as if she had 2 (and that she wouldn't say it if she had none). In your scenario she's only half as likely to say what she says if she has one boy as if she has two boys, because if she only has one there's a 50% chance it's the one she's just given birth to.

I took it.

Correspondence of beliefs to reality being desirable is no closer to being a tautology than financial institutes being on the side of rivers, undercover spies digging tunnels in the ground, or spectacles being drinking vessels.

It is hard to tell whether anyone took this seriously - but it seems that an isomorphic argument 'proves' that computer programs will crash - since "almost any" computer program crashes. The “AGI Apocalypse Argument” as stated thus appears to be rather silly.

I don't see why this makes the argument seem silly. It seems to me that the isomorphic argument is correct, and that computer programs do crash.

He's not talking about impossibility

I know Owen was not talking about impossibility, I brought up impossibility to show that what you thought Owen meant could not be true.

both of which involve moving faster than light.

Moving from B to A slower than the speed of light does not involve moving faster than light.

It shouldn't. Moving from B to A slower than light is possible*, moving from A to B faster than light isn't, and you can't change whether something is possible by changing reference frames.

*(Under special relativity without tachyons)

A piece of code that runs a piece of source code does not thereby become that piece of source code.

It's not clear to me that ZFC without regularity, replacement, infinity, choice, power set or foundation with a totally ordered field with the LUB property does allow you to talk about most things you want to do with the reals : without replacement or powerset you can't prove that cartesian products exist, so there doesn't seem to be any way of talking about the plane or higher-dimensional spaces as sets. If you add powerset back in you can carry out the Hartogs number construction to get a least uncountable ordinal