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

Lee Corbin lcorbin at rawbw.com
Thu Mar 13 13:32:36 UTC 2008


Rafal wrote, Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 8:52 PM

> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Lee Corbin wrote:
> 
> > (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!  [where Rafal omits his rather equivalent description---
see his original March 10 essay that began this thread for essay. 

> > 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 almost endless debate he finally
> > 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

Yes! At least from a certain (subjective?) vantage point.

>  - when you predict a supernova explosion, and act accordingly,
> it is like a message from the future having an impact on the present.

I use Newcomb's Paradox to exemplify one kind of backward seeming
causality http://www.leecorbin.com/UseOfNewcombsParadox.html

>  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....

Very well. Although  :-)  I stay away from "omniscient observes" myself,
being as they are so close to G-d. One may simply rephrase using the
past tense "the shape of parts of my tree... could be calculated... :-)

> > 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.

Pretty severe!  I think that there are personalities among the stars
and other branches of the multiverse that are well withing the present
fuzzy sphere of Rafals who would differ with you here. A human
being is so complex and consists of so many parts that only with
extreme caution would I expel all those who differ with me on a
sole ideological point.

> ### 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.

I disagree.  I believe that there is a truth to the matter of whether
or not a running algorithm lies close to the center of the fuzzy
set of algorithms who we here call Rafal, in rather the same way
that I believe there to be a truth to the matter of whether or not
someone really is Napoleon. Yes, the metric is today not easily
defineable, nor, I suspect, will it ever be *precisely* definable,
just as a "star" is not precisely definable.

> > 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.

Agree completely, though "beyond recognition" *sounds* a little
subjective. And here you revert to our customary usage of "copy".

-------------------------------------------
 
> > * 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?
> >                      [Answer: YES]
> ### 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.

I think that we're close enough in agreement that we can
proceed to this most difficult problem. (Next post, if you're
in agreement.)

> ### 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.

Heh, heh, that's pretty funny.  My very first post to Extropians
in Janurary of 1996 was entitled "Repeated Experience", and
went right into the heart of this. I do value repeated experience.
I wonder if it's worth a detour concerning this before we
proceed. Hmm, I rather suspect that it is.

> 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.

and I would so rent computers for that purpose (provided I get
a good price!  :-)

I'll start a new thread, "Value of Repeated Experience" to pursue
this with you and others---if you agree with me and think that we 
might profitably attend to this issue first. 

Lee




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list