All of solomon alon's Comments + Replies

Evolution will eventually bring fertility back up to normal. It’s inevitable. I don’t know how long it will take. But it will happen. And so will exponential growth.

From my understanding it’s incredibly unlikely. There are roughly two possibilities.

  1. This a false memory implanted by her therapist.

  2. She always had the memory but only realized what it was later or only decided to act on it later.

Note often time children don’t process sexual assault as an incredibly traumatic until years later. either because a therapist brings a memory to the forefront or something happens to bring the memory to the forefront or even just learning about what sex is can cuase the memoru to be traumatic.

7Lukas_Gloor
The opposite is common, though. I know someone who had this happened and they remembered that sexual assault felt distinctly very bad even before knowing what sex was. (And see my other comment on resurfacing memories.) 

Ok so now make a prediction. What kind of data do you expect to see in clinical studies?

For example do you expect RCT’s involving potassium chloride to cause weight loss? Do they actually cause weight loss?

1CuoreDiVetro
Ya, I think it's a little bit more complicated than just K, but I think K plays a critical role. I'll get to this point when get into the effects of various things I tried both according to my internal model and my mathematical model. But for KCl SMTM already did a trial :  https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2022/12/20/people-took-some-potassium-and-lost-some-weight/

Except my intuition is that the Roman’s managed to evade mathlusian living conditions.

Partial evidence: slavery an institution makes very little sense at the mathlusian boundary. Why pay for a slave when human labor costs the amount of food that it covers. (That’s the price of human labor in a mathlusian world)

4Douglas_Knight
Slaves reproducing themselves is nonmalthusian, but rare. Romans captured slaves in war and enslaved debtors. I think the only time in history chattel slaves reproduced themselves is the New World, which was quite nonmalthusian.

Weirdly enough I dream tons about my phone and laptop. It’s usually how I know if I fell asleep or not(while napping during the day). Do I remember looking at my phone or not.

That's a valid point. Still I think four would still be the most likely and since the payoff is significantly bigger it's still worth it to choose just B.

I started reading the FDT paper and it seems to make a lot more sense than TDT. And most importantly does not fail like TDT did in regards to roko's basilisk.

I agree with you, I just was trying to emphasize that if your the real you your decision doesn't change anything. At most it can do is if the simulation is extremely accurate is it can reveal what was already chosen since you know that you will make the same decision as you previously made in the simulation. The big difference between me and timeless decision theory is that I contend that the only reason to choose just box B is because you might be in the simulation. This completely gets rid of ridiculous problems like roko's basilisk. Since we are not cur... (read more)

while i can't actually understand what your saying because I don't understand physics well enough. As far as I know its not controversial to use the multi world model in the less wrong forums and that most people I respect use it fully. Is what your writing relevant to my question or to the entire lesswrong that believe that the many worlds explanation is correct

3Shmi
the key word is "in the lesswrong forums". This is because Eliezer Yudkowsky, the founder and the main contributor for a long time, promoted both MWI and Bayesianism as cornerstones of rationality. Neither is necessary for either epistemic or instrumental rationality, but they are useful reasoning devices. No one really "uses" those directly to make decisions in life, even though most people pretend to. In actuality, they use those to justify the decisions already made, consciously or subconsciously. The reason is that the Bayes theorem relies on evaluation of probabilities, something humans are not very good at. At least not until you spend as much time as Eliezer, Scott and some others on self-calibration. And MWI is generally used as a fancy name for "imagine possible outcomes and assign probabilities to them", which has nothing to do with physics whatsoever, when it is not misused for discussing quantum suicide/immortality, or, well, to justify anthropics.

while i have not read the link you sent and I plan on

They all seem to be referring to the fine tuning argument vs abiogenesis

that's what i thought but I was wondering why this is not used as a counter to theistic proof from abiogenesis

1Ape in the coat
Theistic proof from abiogenesis just passes the buck of improbability from abiogenesis to the existence of God that wills abiogenesis to happen.  Invoking many worlds here will do more harm than good. Next thing we will have theistic proof from many worlds.

It seems weird that given our laws of nature it would be more probable that boltzmann brains would form because boltzmann brains are more complicated than rna as far as I could tell

I thought the whole problem with boltzmann brains was in the fine tuning argument and the multiverse

Could you also link me to a good explanation of the odds of boltzmann brains

Thank you

thanks for the reply

Can you please link me to these cosmologists

1avturchin
Start here reading articles by Page, Carroll, Smolin, Linde, Bostrom.