All of Fivehundred's Comments + Replies

I've been anesthetized twice. I don't remember any dreams whatsoever, but I had the distant feeling that I did dream upon waking (though they may have happened as the drug was loosening its hold).

But you still experience things when you sleep, hence are observing. Also, quantum insomnia should exist if you're correct, but it doesn't.

I don't see how a Boltzmann brain spontaneously forming could ever be more likely than existing in a universe with all the infrastructure necessary to support a natural brain - even if that infrastructure beats some amazing odds, it only has to maintain itself. The theory further requires that mind unification be true.

And I don't see how a death being "natural" makes it OK.

That's not what I said (though it is a good reason to be suspicious of attempts to remove it.) I'll just leave it that I have some philosophical opinions which lead me to believe it is not annihilation.

Also, the baseball example is not a natural phenomenon. If it were, I'd consider it rational to accept it as a good thing.

Actually, I just realized there's no reason you would remain conscious in QI. Surely the damage to your brain and body would put you into a coma - a fate I'd like to avoid, but definitely better than Literally Hell.

Also, what is all this talk about suicide? All I said was that I plan to die normally. You guys are reading weird things into that...

To be clear: your argument is that every human being who has ever lived may suffer eternally after death, and there are good reasons for not caring...?

That requires an answer that, at the very least, you should be able to put in your own words. How does our subjective suffering improve anything in the worlds where you die?

Yes, you either lose or you win. Two choices.

No, it isn't. The same thing will happen to everyone in your branch (you don't see it, of course, but it will subjectively happen to them).

Perhaps you don't understand what the argument says. You, as in the person you are right now, is going to experience that. Not a infinitesimal proportion of other 'yous' while the majority die. Your own subjective experience, 100% of it.

Why wouldn't it create random minds if it's trying to grab as much 'human-space' as possible?

EDIT: Why focus on the potential of quantum immortality at all? There's no special reason to focus on what happens when we *die*, in terms of AI simulation.

By "essentially impossible" I meant "extremely improbable". The word "essentially" was meant to distinguish this from "physically impossible".

I don't see how it refutes the possibility of QI, then.

There is a useful distinction between knowing the meaning of an idea and knowing its truth. I'm disagreeing with the claim that "all of our measure is going into those branches where we survive", understood in the sense that only those branches have moral value (see What Are Probabilities, Anyway?),

Why? Surely they're trying to rescue us. Maintaining the simulation would take away resources from grabbing even more human-measure.

The meaning of "you will always find" has a connotation of certainty or high probability, but we are specifically talking about essentially impossible outcomes.

Why? Nothing is technically impossible with quantum mechanics. It is indeed possible for every single atom of our planet to spontaneously disappear.

This could make sense as a risk on the dust speck side of , but conditioning on survival seems to be just wrong as a way of formulating values (see also).

You're not understanding that all of our measure is going into those branches where... (read more)

But you wanted something who adheres to MWI, and that is not me.

That would be optimal, but I still would like to hear your thoughts.

Some thoughts from Sean Carroll on the topic of Quantum Immortality:

https://www.reddit.com/r/seancarroll/comments/9drd25/quantum_immortality/e5l663t/

And this one from Scott Aaronson:

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2643#comment-1001030

Celebrity or not, both are quite likely to reply to a polite yet anxious email, since they can actually relate to your worries, if maybe not on the same topic.

Unfortunately, neither of ... (read more)

the second is "unification of identical experiences"

I disagree. Quantum Immortality can still exist without it; it's only this supposition of the AI 'rescuing you' that requires that. Also, if AIs are trying to grab as many humans as possible, there's no special reason to focus on dying ones. They could just simulate all sorts of brain states with memories and varied experiences, and then immediately shut down the simulation.

If we assume that we cannot apply self-locating belief to our experience of time (and assume AIs are i... (read more)

But wait, doesn't that require the computational theory of mind and 'unification' of identical experiences? If they don't hold, then we can't go into other universes regardless of whether MWI is true (if they do, then we could even if MWI is false). I would have to already be simulated, and if I am, then there's no reason to suppose it is by the sort of AI you describe.

Your suggestion was based on the assumption of an AI doing it, correct? It isn't something we can naturally fall into? Also, even if all your other assumpt... (read more)

What was that talk about 'stable but improbable' worlds? If someone cares enough to revive me (I assume my measure would mostly enter universes where I was being simulated), then that doesn't seem likely. I also can't fathom that an AI wanting to torture humans would take up a more-than-tiny share of such universes. Do you think such things are likely, or is it that their downsides are so bad that they must be figured into the utilitarian calculus?

What about Tegmark's argument that dying would have to be a binary event in order to experience immortality? If so, wouldn't your consciousness just dissolve? Or can no iota of consciousness be lost?

You've been basilisked.

Yes, but how plausible are such scenarios considered? If I die naturally? I don't find AI superintelligence very plausible.

What about that talk of being 'locked in a very unlikely but stable world'? Where is he getting that from?

There is no empirical evidence for MWI, but a number of physicists do believe that it can be something related to reality, with some heavy modifications, since, as stated, it contradicts General Relativity. Sean Carroll, an expert in both Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, is one

However, in current situation of quick technological progress such eternal sufferings are unlikely, as in 100 years some life extending and pain reducing technologies will appear. Or, if our civilization will crash, some aliens (or owners of simulation) will eventually bring pain reduction technics.

What if I don't agree?

If you have thoughts about non-existence, it may be some form of suicidal ideation, which could be side effect of antidepressants or bad circumstances. I had it, and I am happy that it is in the past. If such ideation persists,

That does not apply to outside-of-the-mainstream views.

It does indeed. Evidence that x is true is not the same as an explanation of how x occurred. For instance, we can see that an ancient city was burned down around a certain year, but not know for what purpose or by whom.

History is a very big subject. Translating Herodotus does not give you any insights into VI-VII century Arabia.

You just complained that he wasn't an academic.

Refraining from a 'detailed' reconstruction seems quite reasonable. In history, you don't generally have to explain how something happens to assert that it did.

Holland is indeed something of a pop author, but once you've translated Herodotus it's hard to claim that you have no real expertise in history.

Um... did you read the following sentence? She didn't abandon the idea at all. And there's at least one major work that argues for it: 'In the Shadow of the Sword.'

The idea as I know it comes from Patricia Crone, but it's been picked up by other historians like Tom Holland. Basically, it claims that Muhammad came from Jordan and the idea of Islam originating in Medina was an attempt to 'Arabize' the new religion.

I'm not sure it counts. Muhammad certainly existed. Most of the theology wouldn't have been made up as you describe. I'm really just talking about the origin story, since whether Islam actually came from Arabia isn't certain.

I admit it's possible for components of a religion to be taken from political propaganda (certain parts of the NT fit the bill), but inventing the idea as a whole... I can't see how that would work out. Except maybe in the case of Islam, but even then it was just grabbing on to the coattails of Judaism and Christianity.

It's a safe assumption that any religion with ancient roots was not made up by someone for political purposes.

Sure, but (without even mentioning how much it takes from mainstream Christianity) Mormonism is... 150 years old. How many Quakers do you see these days?

Would Snell's Law possibly explain it? Someone claimed to me that it makes light refract more with decreasing altitude.

Ah, I already Googled but I got confused because the first guy who came up on the search seemed to be talking about something else.

But I used a different phrasing and got the answer. FWI, Google isn't always reliable for refuting crackpots and Wikipedia is very unreliable. If I assumed that the latter represented the state of human knowledge I'd be forced to concede that most of what Wild Heretic says is true.

Hmm, his argument that stars can never be seen anywhere at high altitudes (excepting the 'fraudulent' NASA photographs) doesn't yet have an unambiguous counterexample I could find. He doesn't deny that the stars must be higher than the atmosphere but think they only become visible near the ground.

But the articles on the solar equinox and the solstice are probably the best on the whole site. Or they just seem that way to me, because I don't know enough math to refute them.

The claim being made is that satellites should be exposed to temperatures nearly twice as hot as the melting point of iron.

I don't understand why you think this is a refutation. What is giving energy to the molecules in the upper atmosphere, if not the sun? And if it is the sun, higher density matter like satellites would would experience extreme heat.

You're not giving the full quote, and even if he had said that, it wouldn't remotely meet any burden of proof for showing Christianity was probably created for political purposes. The behavior of the Roman authorities towards Christianity seems to offer more evidence against that, as well as the embarrassment for having their Messiah be crucified by a Roman governor.

Ugh... I'm talking about whoever created Islam or Christianity in the first place, and Lumifer's response didn't seem to acknowledge that. I am indeed aware that Islam predates the Ottoman dynasty.

Yes, that's precisely my point. Religious doctrines get sorted out over centuries so that the most viable survive. People who deliberately set out to create their own cult can't match this.

Thought it was worth posting, but even he doesn't think it's very convincing on its own.

Did the Ottoman Sultans invent Islam?

This is not a good response. Surely you can admit this is coherent?

At about 85km altitude temperatures start to rise until they hit the Kármán line which is 100km high. After this line, the heat abruptly increases rising rapidly to 200km whereby it starts to level off (100km is the very start of the radiation belts as well which become full strength at 200km funnily enough), although other sources say it continually rises. Temperatures can vary, depending on sun activity, but can reach as high as… wait for it…

2500°C!

I kid you not.

In case you don

Ah, I mean a religion that was created or originally propagated through patronization. Every religion has been patronized for political purposes at some point. Christianity is a pretty good example of a religion that was not useful to the authorities during its early years.

Thank you! That's the kind of thing I'm looking for.

At risk of derailing the thread here, I'd say there are no examples you can bring of a politically created/patronized religion displacing native beliefs, assuming the mentality of the public didn't favor that religion. For instance, Anglicanism may have suited the British state well, but it wasn't arbitrarily forced onto a resistant Catholic population.

Well, I don't know a whole lot about physics or the other subjects he talks about. It just seems very well-argued to me. Would you care to elaborate on what you think is incoherent?

Many are given in the words themselves, so I don't see why you're asking. The laser between posts?

Nearly every link provides falsifiable claims, although some are difficult to test.

How do I contact a mod or site administrator on Lesswrong?

Sorry for taking such a long time to respond.

the main question for any AI is its relations with other AIs in the universe. So it should learn somehow if any exist and if not, why. The best way to do it is to model AIs development on different planets. I think it include billion simulations of near-singularity civilizations.

Any successful FAI would create many more simulated observers, in my scenario. Since FAI is possible, it's much more likely that we are in a universe that generates it.

Many extinction scenarious will be checked in such simulations,

It may just test different solutions of Fermi paradox on simulations, which it must do.

What? What does this mean?

Or you mean that friendly AI will try to give humans the biggest possible measure? But our world is not paradise.

No, it's trying to give measure to the humans that survived into the Singularity. Not all of them might simulate the entire lifespan, but some will. They will also simulate them postsingularity, although we will be actively aware of this. This is what I mean by 'protecting' our measure.

Sorry for the late response. I've been feeling a lot better and found it hard to discuss the subject again.

Ok, look. By definition BBs are random. Not only random are their experience but also their thoughts. So, half of them think that they are in chaotic environment, and 50 per cent thinks that they are not. So thought that I am in non-chaotic environment has zero information about am I BB or not. As BB exist only one moment of experience, it can't make long conjectures. It can't check its surrounding, then compare it (with what?), then calculate its m

We have additional evidence for BB, that is idea of eternal fluctuation of vacuum after heat death, which may give us very strong prior. Basically if there is 10 power 100 BBs for each real mind it will override the evidence by non randomness of our environment.

How? The proportion of chaotic minds to orderly minds will never change. Even if there are infinite BBs in the future, it doesn't alter how likely it is that the 'heat death' model is simply mistaken, and that some infinite source of computing is found for us to use.

I agree that sapient beings

Measure. His arguments do not account for it.