[ExI] The Many Dimensional Sculpture, or dont' bother about runtime

Wed Mar 12 03:52:26 UTC 2008

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

> I don't have time to digress on modal reality, and the way that I think
> that
> it's subsumed by the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics.
> In short, MWI so far as I can tell, provides a complete model for modal
> reality.

### As usual, we agree more than might be expected from the initial
statements. Here I would however say that modal realism subsumes MWI.
Tegmark posits four levels of parallelism, and I would see modal realism as
relevant to the fourth level - the ensemble of all mathematical structures,
while MWI pertains to the current mathematical description of our direct
neighborhood (60 billion light years diameter).

-------------------------------------------

>
> > Like a GLUT (Giant Look-Up Table) of you? And this is the only
> > you, the one and unique representation and the time/place of your
> > consciousness?
>
> Of course, as you know, this is at extreme variance with our
> normal usages of the words "you" and the time/places of your
> consciousness. For example, either under modal realism or the
> MWI, something extremely similar to me (under the conventional
> meanings of words) actually received a phone call a few minutes
> ago, and so is not typing this. It's a "possible world" under
> modal realism, and equally real under the MWI. Below, you use
> "versions of you" to talk about, for example, those Rafals who
> get to live forever, or those Lees who got a phone call.

### Yes, this is indeed a bit different way of looking at oneself - trying
to do away with time as something that passes, and instead seeing it as a
part of yourself, one of the dimensions that differentiate various parts of
me from each other. The "Rafals who get to live forever" are more like thin
lines connecting a larger mass at the base of the tree (corresponding to the
majority of my versions that die before or during the singularity) to the
wider branching parts corresponding to the versions of me successfully
surviving the singularity, getting uploaded and having the chance to do all
things that a being can do and still be recognizably similar to the
me-now-here.

--------------------------------------------------------

> (Now I am actually very sympathetic to a definition of "you" that
> states that "you are a fuzzy sphere in the space of all algorithms",
> and that (a version of) you traces out some particular path over
> time. This moving point may leave the sphere so far behind that
> "you become someone else".)

### Yes!

-----------------------------------

>
> Now on your usage of words, he and I and all the Lee's who
> were/are fighting in the Second World War, are simply a part
> of the great Tree of Me. An immediate difficulty you might want
> to address is, "Does the tree of Lee overlap with the tree of
> Rafal?"  If not, why not?  My own "fuzzy spheres" do allow
> for overlap at their extreme edges.

### Well, yes, I think that some overlap exists. Some of the Rafal-parts and
the Lee-parts that make it through the singularity may one day live in the
same piece of computronium, perhaps sharing some basic resources, perhaps
even buying and selling memories and various utilities - but in general my
definition of self does not permit strong overlap with other minds.

BTW, Lee - are you *that* old? :)

-----------------------------------------------

>
> > Causation is nothing but correlation...if you know what I mean.
>
> Actually, I don't. Many years ago John Clark made an excellent
> case that for A to cause B reduces simply to "A always comes
> before B". Maybe the current branch of the JC tree is doubtful
> of that now, but after lengthy debate he convinced me.
>
> Also, the study of "Causality" conducted by Judea Pearl in the
> book of that name makes me highly suspicious of trying to
> reduce causality to correlation.
>

### This is indeed a very thorny issue. I agree that in some sense,
describing causality is more complex than simply pointing to a correlation.
One could even claim that causation can act backwards in time - when you
predict a supernova explosion, and act accordingly, it is like a message
from the future having an impact on the present. But in the present context
I still think it is fair to say that causation is a form of correlation. My
thoughts correlate with my actions, i.e. the omniscient observer would be
able to calculate the shape of parts of my tree of life (what is the measure
of me that goes to bed in an hour), by observing other parts of me (the
neurons in my hypothalamus now). Correlation is the glue that keeps time
together. Correlation is the only connection between the world states that
comprise me. Correlation is the connection between each moment of my
conscious existence. So to say that my thoughts cause my actions, is to say
that my present thoughts correlate with my actions. Not all correlation is
causation, but all causation is correlation.

-------------------------------------------------------

>
> > Thus I am the many-dimensional sculptor of my past, present
> > and future. I do care about the size of my tree of life, which
> > translated into time-speak means, I want to live longer.
>
> You mean "this version of you wants to live longer", right?

### Well, actually, wanting to live longer (assuming no severe pain) is one
of the key characteristics of all parts of me. If a mind with my memories
and inclinations is made but it has no built-in desire to live longer (in
the sense of identifying with the branches of me that extend as far as
possible), then that mind is not a part of me. It is its own little tree of
life.

------------------------------------------------------

>
> > If some of my versions in at least some possible universes
> > escape aging and live for thousands of years, it is like saying
> > that my tree of life is tall. And those who would resolutely
> > refuse life extension? Their trees are stunted, mere bushes,
> > since in every possible universe they choose death.
>
> Well yes, but I doubt that they choose death in *every*
> possible universe. Without recourse to "possible worlds", one
> may simply point out that at 75 years of age one of them
> happened to make a friend who was the world's most
> persuasive cryonics advocate.

### There may be people who would simply refuse to call a survivor a part of
their tree of life. They define themselves as mortal, and since the
definition is all there is to a mathematical structure, they are mortal.

---------------------------------------------------

>
> By "copies" in these and similar threads, we always meant copies
> of a version-of-you in a tiny branch of the overall multiverse.

### Yeah, here we agree. I agree that "copies" that are not ideally
identical are indeed separate branches of me, as long as they don't diverge
beyond recognition.

-------------------------------------------

> * Action Item: Do I benefit from the replication of copies that
>                      become a tiny bit different almost at once, and
>                      then have different thoughts as they explore
>                      many different planets?  Should I pay for that?
>                      Analysis: Either on Rafal's analysis or mine,
>                      the answer is "YES". He'd say your tree of life
>                      is enriched, I'd say you get more runtime.

### Yes, we agree here.

------------------------

> Left unanalyzed for now:  *Action Item: Do I benefit by the
>                      multiplication over space of absolutely quantum-
>                      mechanically equivalent copies. Analysis: later.
>
> SO I think we agree that it's better for one to get more
> runtime---or as you would say---have more and higher
> branches in the Tree-of-You. I'd favor leaving the
> "absolutely quantum-mechanically  equivalent copies
> case" until after we're seeing a little more eye-to-eye
> on the above (or making sure we do)  Even though your
> subject line directly implied runtime to be taken merely
> as summed over absolutely identical copies!  Grrr. :-)
>

### Yes, this quantum mechanical shtick is tough. But I still don't like the
term "runtime" - it seems to imply that running and re-running the same
calculations is important. I want new calculations to be performed, so I
would spawn teleporter quality copies to explore, preferably with some
feedback mechanism to prolong cohesion among copies as they learn new
things. I would not rent computronium just to run the same moment over and
over again, like Egan's climber.

Rafal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080311/febfdc0c/attachment.html>