- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Jesse Mazer <lasermazer.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:01:59 -0400

"Stathis Papaioannou" wrote:

*>
*

*>
*

*>Subjectively, there is *always* a one to one correspondence between an
*

*>earlier and a later version, even though from a third person perspective
*

*>the relationship may appear to be one to many, many to many, or many to
*

*>one. This is in part why reasoning as if observer moments can be sampled
*

*>randomly from the set of all observer moments gives the wrong answer.
*

Can you explain more why you think this one-to-one relationship implies it's

incorrect to apply the self-sampling assumption to observer-moments? As I

said in the "Request for a glossary of acronyms" thread (at

http://tinyurl.com/5265d ), I am inclined to believe a final theory of

everything would allow us to use both the ASSA (the theory would assign each

observer-moment an absolute probability, and we could reason as if our

current OM was randomly selected from the set of all possible OMs, weighted

by their absolute probability) and the RSSA (for each OM, the theory would

give a conditional probability that the observer's subsequent experience

would be any other possible OM). If you're suggesting the two are

incompatible, there's no need for them to be. Consider the following

analogy--we have a bunch of tanks of water, and each tank is constantly

pumping a certain amount of its own water to a bunch of other tanks, and

having water pumped into it from other tanks. The ratio between the rates

that a given tank is pumping water into two other tanks corresponds to the

ratio between the probabilities that a given observer-moment will be

succeeded by one of two other possible OMs--if you imagine individual water

molecules as observers, then the ratio between rates water is going to the

two tanks will be the same as the ratio between the probabilities that a

given molecule in the current tank will subsequently find itself in one of

those two tanks. Meanwhile, the total amount of water in a tank would

correspond to the absolute probability of a given OM--at any given time, if

you randomly select a single water molecule from the collection of all

molecules in all tanks, the amount of water in a tank is proportional to the

probability your randomly-selected molecule will be in that tank.

Now, for most ways of arranging this system, the total amount of water in

different tanks will be changing over time. In terms of the analogy, this

would be like imposing some sort of universal time-coordinate on the whole

multiverse and saying the absolute probability of finding yourself

experiencing a given OM changes with time, which seems pretty implausible to

me. But if the system is balanced in such a way that, for each tank, the

total rate that water is being pumped out is equal to the total rate that

water is being pumped in, then the system as a whole will be in a kind of

equilibrium, with no variation in the amount of water in any tank over time.

So in terms of OMs, this suggests a constraint on the relationship between

the absolute probabilities and the conditional probabilities, and this

constraint (together with some constraints imposed by a 'theory of

consciousness' of some kind) might actually help us find a unique

self-consistent way to assign both sets of probabilities, an idea I

elaborated on in the "Request for a glossary of acronyms" thread.

In terms of the QTI, accepting both the ASSA and RSSA seems to imply there

would be no point at which our stream of consciousness would end, but the

ASSA also implies that it's unlikely a typical observer-moment has memories

of being extremely old, so it seems we'd have to accept some sort of

"immortality with amnesia"--maybe as I approach death, my stream of

consciousness will move into simpler and simpler OMs, and then eventually

start climbing back up the ladder of complexity into the OMs of a different

person who has no memory of my life. Or maybe the advanced transhuman

intelligences of the future periodically like to wipe most of their memories

and experience what it was like to be a human-level intelligence, so that at

the end of my life my memories will be reintigrated with those of this

larger intelligence (maybe this replaying of a life would be a necessary

part of the merging of two distinct transhuman minds, something which

transhuman intelligences would probably want to do if at all possible).

There are probably other creative ways to have immortality (as implied by

the RSSA) be compatible with the idea that my current OM is a "typical" one

(as implied by the ASSA), too.

Jesse

Received on Thu Jun 09 2005 - 09:15:40 PDT

Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:01:59 -0400

"Stathis Papaioannou" wrote:

Can you explain more why you think this one-to-one relationship implies it's

incorrect to apply the self-sampling assumption to observer-moments? As I

said in the "Request for a glossary of acronyms" thread (at

http://tinyurl.com/5265d ), I am inclined to believe a final theory of

everything would allow us to use both the ASSA (the theory would assign each

observer-moment an absolute probability, and we could reason as if our

current OM was randomly selected from the set of all possible OMs, weighted

by their absolute probability) and the RSSA (for each OM, the theory would

give a conditional probability that the observer's subsequent experience

would be any other possible OM). If you're suggesting the two are

incompatible, there's no need for them to be. Consider the following

analogy--we have a bunch of tanks of water, and each tank is constantly

pumping a certain amount of its own water to a bunch of other tanks, and

having water pumped into it from other tanks. The ratio between the rates

that a given tank is pumping water into two other tanks corresponds to the

ratio between the probabilities that a given observer-moment will be

succeeded by one of two other possible OMs--if you imagine individual water

molecules as observers, then the ratio between rates water is going to the

two tanks will be the same as the ratio between the probabilities that a

given molecule in the current tank will subsequently find itself in one of

those two tanks. Meanwhile, the total amount of water in a tank would

correspond to the absolute probability of a given OM--at any given time, if

you randomly select a single water molecule from the collection of all

molecules in all tanks, the amount of water in a tank is proportional to the

probability your randomly-selected molecule will be in that tank.

Now, for most ways of arranging this system, the total amount of water in

different tanks will be changing over time. In terms of the analogy, this

would be like imposing some sort of universal time-coordinate on the whole

multiverse and saying the absolute probability of finding yourself

experiencing a given OM changes with time, which seems pretty implausible to

me. But if the system is balanced in such a way that, for each tank, the

total rate that water is being pumped out is equal to the total rate that

water is being pumped in, then the system as a whole will be in a kind of

equilibrium, with no variation in the amount of water in any tank over time.

So in terms of OMs, this suggests a constraint on the relationship between

the absolute probabilities and the conditional probabilities, and this

constraint (together with some constraints imposed by a 'theory of

consciousness' of some kind) might actually help us find a unique

self-consistent way to assign both sets of probabilities, an idea I

elaborated on in the "Request for a glossary of acronyms" thread.

In terms of the QTI, accepting both the ASSA and RSSA seems to imply there

would be no point at which our stream of consciousness would end, but the

ASSA also implies that it's unlikely a typical observer-moment has memories

of being extremely old, so it seems we'd have to accept some sort of

"immortality with amnesia"--maybe as I approach death, my stream of

consciousness will move into simpler and simpler OMs, and then eventually

start climbing back up the ladder of complexity into the OMs of a different

person who has no memory of my life. Or maybe the advanced transhuman

intelligences of the future periodically like to wipe most of their memories

and experience what it was like to be a human-level intelligence, so that at

the end of my life my memories will be reintigrated with those of this

larger intelligence (maybe this replaying of a life would be a necessary

part of the merging of two distinct transhuman minds, something which

transhuman intelligences would probably want to do if at all possible).

There are probably other creative ways to have immortality (as implied by

the RSSA) be compatible with the idea that my current OM is a "typical" one

(as implied by the ASSA), too.

Jesse

Received on Thu Jun 09 2005 - 09:15:40 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:10 PST
*