eddie
17
15
eddie has not written any posts yet.
Caledonian: What I mean by "time" is whatever Eliezer means by it, and what I mean by "exist" is that thing that Eliezer says causality does but time doesn't. It seems to me that time and causality are so intertwined that they are surely the same thing; if you have causality but not time, then I don't understand what this "time" thing is that you don't have.
When Eliezer says things like "Our equations don't need a t in them, so we can banish the t and make our ontology that much simpler", perhaps I need a better understanding of exactly what he's proposing to banish.
Perhaps my first clue is your point that causality loops are logically possible. Perhaps time loops aren't logically possible, and that's one way in which the two are not the same. Perhaps I'm using a different mental dictionary than everyone else in these threads.
Nick: IL, to do what you suggest you'd have to actually compute the history of your universe, meaning the causal relations would exist, so there wouldn't be any problem with there being consciousness.
I don't think that's correct. You could populate your model with random data, and if that data happens to be an accurate representation of the timeless universe, then poof you have created consciousness with no computation required (unless you believe that acquiring random data and writing it to RAM is "computation" of the kind that should create causality and consciousness).
Granted, most such randomly populated models wouldn't contain causality or consciousness. But a non-zero number of them would.
I think IL's point stands. If the universe is timeless, then a sufficiently large integer is full of conscious beings.
Caledonian: thanks for the reply, but that wasn't what I was getting at. I can see that things in a temporal sequence may not be causally related - e.g. the light flashes and then the bell rings, but the light didn't cause the bell. My question was about the reverse implication: if causality exists, such that A causes B, does that not necessarily imply that A preceded B and that time exists? If not, what aspect of time is not included within the notion of causality such that we can have causality but not time?
The only case I can think of offhand would be a time loop: grampa tells... (read more)
Don't think that any of this preserves time, though, or distinguishes the past from the future. I am just holding onto cause and effect and computation and even anticipation for a little while longer.
What is the difference between a time-like relationship and a causal relationship? How have you not preserved time by preserving causality?
You've never been so intoxicated that you "lose time", and woken up wondering who you threw up on the previous night? You've never done any kind of hallucinogenic drug? You don't ... sleep?
I have in fact done at least two of the above three. (Perhaps if I slept I wouldn't need to take drugs so often...)
But you're taking my words too literally and missing my point. Indeed, it is very possible for me to fail to perceive time; I've done it before, and at some point I'll do it forever. But the very fact that I can sit here, now, and talk about "before" and "forever" and "now" (and... (read more)
Assuming that dust theory or the block universe or Barbourian timelessness are true... I fail to see how it matters to any of us.
Presumably, we are all timeful beings. I know I am (cogito, ergo tempus fugit), and I assume the rest of you are, too. Whether I and my memories and my perception of time passing only exist as collections of block slices or as neighboring nodes in the static quantum foam in configuration space or as relationships between specks of dust... or even as time-slices in a computer simulation, or as integers in MathSpace which is the only thing that really exists... it doesn't matter. I still... (read more)
And for those of us who haven't read Permutation City at all, here's an explanation of this whole "dust theory" thing they're talking about.
(The FAQ Z.M.Davis points to has answers to several good questions about dust theory, but not the question "what is it?")
Okay, one more try at closing the italics tag, and now I definitely blame the AI and not myself...
Eliezer, if this doesn't work, please feel free to delete the offending posts, if you can persuade your AI to let you.
This must be how we got the poor schmuck to mix together the protein vials.
... not that humans are much smarter, it seems.
(stupid meat puppet, stupid html tags...)
Eliezer's creation (the AI-Box Experiment) has once again demonstrated its ability to take over human minds through a text session. Small wonder - it's got the appearance of a magic trick, and it's being presented to geeks who just love to take things apart to see how they work, and who stay attracted to obstacles ("challenges") rather than turned away by them.
My contribution is to echo Doug S.'s post (how AOL-ish... "me too"). I'm a little puzzled by the AI-Box Experiment, in that I don't see what the gatekeeper players are trying to prove by playing. AI-Boxers presumably take the real-world position of "I'll keep the AI in the... (read more)