Comment by eitan_zohar on Can anyone refute these arguments that we live on the interior of a hollow Earth? · 2017-07-28T16:28:01.268Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

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.

Comment by eitan_zohar on Can anyone refute these arguments that we live on the interior of a hollow Earth? · 2017-07-26T18:18:08.929Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

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.

Comment by eitan_zohar on Can anyone refute these arguments that we live on the interior of a hollow Earth? · 2017-07-26T17:24:43.336Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

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.'

Comment by eitan_zohar on Can anyone refute these arguments that we live on the interior of a hollow Earth? · 2017-07-26T12:30:17.350Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

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.

Comment by eitan_zohar on Can anyone refute these arguments that we live on the interior of a hollow Earth? · 2017-07-26T00:56:10.784Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

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.

Comment by eitan_zohar on Can anyone refute these arguments that we live on the interior of a hollow Earth? · 2017-07-25T22:18:16.493Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

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.

Comment by eitan_zohar on Can anyone refute these arguments that we live on the interior of a hollow Earth? · 2017-07-24T20:31:45.316Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

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

Comment by eitan_zohar on Can anyone refute these arguments that we live on the interior of a hollow Earth? · 2017-07-24T18:47:52.818Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

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?

Comment by eitan_zohar on Can anyone refute these arguments that we live on the interior of a hollow Earth? · 2017-07-24T18:29:45.708Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

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

Comment by eitan_zohar on Can anyone refute these arguments that we live on the interior of a hollow Earth? · 2017-07-24T10:37:37.886Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

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.

Comment by eitan_zohar on Can anyone refute these arguments that we live on the interior of a hollow Earth? · 2017-07-24T09:39:13.059Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

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.

Comment by eitan_zohar on Can anyone refute these arguments that we live on the interior of a hollow Earth? · 2017-07-24T09:29:37.493Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

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

Comment by eitan_zohar on Can anyone refute these arguments that we live on the interior of a hollow Earth? · 2017-07-24T09:25:18.731Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

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.

Comment by eitan_zohar on Can anyone refute these arguments that we live on the interior of a hollow Earth? · 2017-07-24T09:12:09.165Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

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.

Comment by eitan_zohar on Can anyone refute these arguments that we live on the interior of a hollow Earth? · 2017-07-24T09:06:31.971Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

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.

Comment by eitan_zohar on Can anyone refute these arguments that we live on the interior of a hollow Earth? · 2017-07-24T09:04:48.669Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

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.

Comment by eitan_zohar on Can anyone refute these arguments that we live on the interior of a hollow Earth? · 2017-07-22T16:25:53.531Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

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

Comment by eitan_zohar on Can anyone refute these arguments that we live on the interior of a hollow Earth? · 2017-07-22T16:11:15.513Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Did the Ottoman Sultans invent Islam?

Comment by eitan_zohar on Can anyone refute these arguments that we live on the interior of a hollow Earth? · 2017-07-22T15:36:51.171Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

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’t know how hot 2500°C is. Your oven in your kitchen can hit 240°C max. A ceramic laboratory oven for jewelers and dentists to melt gold can reach 1200°C. Temperatures in a blast furnace for melting iron can go as high as 2300°C.

The only elements in the periodic table that can withstand 2500°C are carbon, niobium, molybdenum, tantalum, tungsten, rhenium, and osmium. Except for carbon, these metals are very, very heavy and are of course extremely conductive to heat and most are very ductile when heat treated meaning they bend and coil. Carbon even has the highest thermal conductivities of all known materials! So, if you want to cook someone very efficiently and quickly, there is nothing better than a space capsule made out of graphite.

Now, admittedly, it is not always 2500°C. In fact the temperature range is usually between a mere 600 to 2000°C! depending on sun activity and if it is day or night, with these temperatures usually reserved for altitudes of 300km and above; the upper boundary of which is unknown.

Now guess what altitude all the NASA machines are supposed to orbit Earth?

We are told most satellites orbit the Earth at altitudes of over 500km to avoid atmospheric drag, with a few circling in Medium Earth Orbit which goes up to 35,786km!

Comment by eitan_zohar on Can anyone refute these arguments that we live on the interior of a hollow Earth? · 2017-07-22T15:32:26.937Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

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.

Comment by eitan_zohar on Can anyone refute these arguments that we live on the interior of a hollow Earth? · 2017-07-22T15:25:58.440Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

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

Comment by eitan_zohar on Can anyone refute these arguments that we live on the interior of a hollow Earth? · 2017-07-22T01:24:02.238Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

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.

Comment by eitan_zohar on Can anyone refute these arguments that we live on the interior of a hollow Earth? · 2017-07-22T01:06:31.764Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

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?

Comment by eitan_zohar on Can anyone refute these arguments that we live on the interior of a hollow Earth? · 2017-07-22T00:58:02.057Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

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

Comment by eitan_zohar on Can anyone refute these arguments that we live on the interior of a hollow Earth? · 2017-07-21T17:24:24.149Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

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

Can anyone refute these arguments that we live on the interior of a hollow Earth?

2017-07-21T16:51:09.671Z · score: 1 (1 votes)
Comment by eitan_zohar on Open thread, Jul. 17 - Jul. 23, 2017 · 2017-07-21T16:44:02.134Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

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

Comment by eitan_zohar on You are (mostly) a simulation. · 2015-08-18T08:40:23.050Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

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, and even if they pass, they will be switched off.

But we will simply continue on in the simulations that weren't switched off. These are more likely to be friendly, so it would end up the same.

But I dont understand why FAI should model only people living near singulaity.

It doesn't. People living postsingularity would be threatened by simulations, too. Assuming that new humans are not created (unlikely given that each one has to be simulated countless times) most of them will have been born before it took place. Why not begin it there?

Comment by eitan_zohar on You are (mostly) a simulation. · 2015-07-29T16:32:24.675Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

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.

Comment by eitan_zohar on You are (mostly) a simulation. · 2015-07-26T00:12:30.055Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

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 measure of randomness and thus your own probability of existence.

Ideas or concepts are qualia themselves, aren't they? And since consciousness is inherently a process, I don't think that you can reduce it to 'one moment' of experience. You would benefit to read about philosophical skepticism.

Finally, what do you mean by "measure"? The fact that Im not a superintelligence is evidence against that superintelligence are dominating class of beings. But some may exist.

My whole argument here is that all of my experiences are explained by friendly superintelligence. Measure means the likelihood of a given perception being 'realized'. I can conclude from this that humans therefore have a very high measure; we are the dominant creatures of existence. Presumably because we later create superintelligence that aligns with our goals. Animals or ancient humans would have much lower measures.

Comment by eitan_zohar on You are (mostly) a simulation. · 2015-07-21T15:58:34.532Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

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 are more probable because they have many more internal states. But it also means that you and I are in the middle of IQ distribution in the universe, that is no superintelligence exists anywhere. This is grim. It is like DA for intelligence and it means that high intelligence post-humans are impossible.

Whoa whoa whoa. I don't think that sapient beings having more internal states makes them more likely to be selected. I was talking about the simulation argument I've advanced on this thread.

Our current model of the universe makes it seem easy and straightforward for superintelligence to exist. Even if we were to wipe ourselves out, the fact that we live in a Big World means that superintelligence will always be taking most of the measure. This is precisely what I argued on this thread.

You long example is in fact about aliens who created DA for themselves. My idea was that you may use mediocracy logic for any reference class, from which you randomly chosen, and you could belong to several such classes simultaneously. But the class of observers who knows about DA, is special class because it will appear in any alien specie, and in any thought experiment. This class include such observers from all possible species and so we may speak about their distribution in the universe. Also such class is smallest and imply soonest Doom in DA. Even Carter who created DA in 1983 knew it, and as he was the only one at the moment in this class, he felt himself in danger.

Now I understand. But the fact that most humans do not comprehend the DA doesn't neutralize its effects on humanity, does it?

(I'm beginning to realize what a nightmare anthropics is.)

Comment by eitan_zohar on The Consequences of Dust Theory. · 2015-07-21T09:25:31.165Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Measure. His arguments do not account for it.

Comment by eitan_zohar on You are (mostly) a simulation. · 2015-07-21T09:25:01.320Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I said it was Bostrom's term. How is that a wrong impression?

Comment by eitan_zohar on You are (mostly) a simulation. · 2015-07-21T09:22:53.595Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

The problem with this conclusion that it relies on ability of BB truely distinguish the type of reality they are in. If we prove some how that most BB are not able to understand that they live in random environment, than our reality check does not work.

But the whole chain of reasoning is still circular. You haven't explained why being a Boltzmann brain is more plausible than being under a daemon's spell.

If you were randomly picked of all possible observers you should be a worm or other simple creature.

Yes, and my argument here accounts for that: sapient beings will have many more instances of themselves and therefore much higher measure than animals.

The fact that you are not worm may be used as a proof that worms does not exist. Which is false. You not a random observer. You are randomly selected from observers who could understand that they are an observers. ))

Let's take some aliens as our example. These aliens have intellects between a human's and a chimpanzee's. One in a hundred of them develops much greater intelligence than others (similar to Egan's aliens in Incandescence). They consist of a single united herd, but are the size of bugs. After a hundred thousand years of wandering the desert, they come to a large lake, teeming with food and fresh water and devoid of any real predators. The elders expect that their race will soon number a millionfold of what they were.

But unknown to them, a meteorite is headed directly at the lake- the species will certainly be wiped out in a few months. The few aliens gifted with intellect reason that their observations are highly unlikely should the lake really multiply their numbers by a million. But the rest of the herd cannot comprehend these arguments, and care only for day-to-day survival.

Their selection is from their species, and they can make inferences from that. Why would it be any different?

Comment by eitan_zohar on You are (mostly) a simulation. · 2015-07-20T12:52:04.978Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

When I search my position in the class of observers that are like me, the only thing which is define this class of observers is that it is able to write down and understand this sentence. And I should not count the ones who are not able to understand it, because I already know that they are not me. In short: If one ask "Why I am not a worm?", the answer is: because a worm can't make this question.

But if the question has nothing to do with whether or not you understand it? Taking the DA as our example, the only thing you ought to be concerned about is what human are you. I don't see why comprehension of the DA is relevant to that.

The problem is that we can't take for granted that BB could judge randomness of their surroundings adequately. For example: in a dream you may have a thought and think that it is very wise. But in the morning you will understand that it is bullshit.

And our knowledge of BBs comes solely from a long series of assumptions and inferences. If most observers are Boltzmann brains, than most observers, of whatever type, will experience chaos. If you're going to say that that might not be true because BBs are deluded, I have to ask why the same doesn't apply to the argument that we might be BBs. It's a great deal more complicated than my own argument, which is that chaos is more common than order.

Why not assume an evil daemon, if we're going to reason this way?

Comment by eitan_zohar on You are (mostly) a simulation. · 2015-07-20T12:37:13.876Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Permutation City is only required reading to understand Dust Theory. I'm arguing that the odds of us being simulated (if the reference class includes the whole multiverse) is extremely high. I also believe in the information theory of identity; this means that part of our consciousness is really being implemented in the physical world. This, following the lines of argument, gives hypothetical future FAIs a motive to simulate us.

I didn't realize how hard this was to follow if you aren't already familiar with these concepts. Sorry!

Comment by eitan_zohar on You are (mostly) a simulation. · 2015-07-20T10:44:14.997Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

All I'm saying is that out of all possible observers that would arise in a Boltzmann state, ours is a long way from the most common.

In fact, I think that only humans who are able to understand Doomsday Argument should be counted as observers... :)

Why?

Comment by eitan_zohar on You are (mostly) a simulation. · 2015-07-20T09:01:25.835Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Yes, where did I give the impression that I didn't?

Comment by eitan_zohar on You are (mostly) a simulation. · 2015-07-20T08:42:51.481Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

You're operating under the assumption that only humans count as observers, which is almost certainly not true and breaks the whole theory down.

(Btw, if such complicated things can exist in high-entropy environments, than why aren't we able to survive there after heat death? Unless we're talking about quantum permutations?)

Comment by eitan_zohar on You are (mostly) a simulation. · 2015-07-20T08:33:25.081Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

yes, it is obvious patch it Bostrom's logic. If you continue it, you may conclude that cheap simulation are more numerous. "Cheap" means this that physics detalisation is poor and probably it is simulation of just one person - you.

You haven't properly read my argument. That's exactly what I say- but also that the simulation is designed around a real experience.

Comment by eitan_zohar on You are (mostly) a simulation. · 2015-07-20T08:26:20.332Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

In an infinite universe, the likelihood of existing in some "macroscopic state of the world" like "your brain is inside your body on the earth in the solar system" or "your exact brain is floating inside a cloud of disordered gas the mass of the solar system" is proportional to how many "microscopic states of the world" correspond that that macroscopic state, where a microscopic state means writing down the states of all the subatomic particles and what they're doing. (This is the assumption that the universe reaches thermal equilibrium).

And because the solar system is so orderly (it's not at maximum entropy), there are many, many, many, MANY more possible microscopic states corresponding to a macroscopic state like "your brain is floating inside a cloud of disordered gas" than there are to the actual states corresponding to a real solar system.

I don't understand much of this. My argument is that Boltzmann brains would almost certainly experience chaos. So I would have to be in the 0.000000000000000000001% of Boltzmann brains to observe a rational universe (not to mention one that actually predicts the existence of Boltzmann brains). Yes, the rational Boltzmann Brains actually would outnumber their regular counterparts, but that's talking past the problem. The odds are astronomically higher that something is wrong with your science. Maybe FAI figures out how to create negentropy, or breaks out into another universe, or finds a way to have infinite computing power. You suggested some options yourself. All of these have a probability considerably higher than 0.000000000000000000001%.

Comment by eitan_zohar on You are (mostly) a simulation. · 2015-07-20T07:23:20.418Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

If there are two identical experiences, there is no problem of jumping, .or waking up as someone else. Identical twins don't randomly swap identities. Jumping is a dynamical, causal process. You can make it happen by transplanting a brain,or copying a neural pattern, but there is no reason it should happen because of pure logic,

Sure, but haven't I just said I don't take Duplication seriously?

While we're on the subject, if there is a single experience threaded through multiple worlds, there is also no jumping. You can't jump from one version your self another, because there is only one version.

The whole point is about what happens when my self becomes less detailed. If it resumes its former detail (waking up), all may not be as it was. If a memory is completely extracted from my brain, than my brain ceases to anchor me predominantly in worlds where that memory happened. Other options could fill in the hole.

You can't jump from one world to another, in the sense of leaving one and ariving at another, because you are always in all of them.

This has never been about 'jumping' wholesale! I just used the word because there is no other.

Comment by eitan_zohar on You are (mostly) a simulation. · 2015-07-18T18:55:47.723Z · score: -2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Why should it disobey every observed law of physics? Are you arguing that conscious observers would almost certainly experience chaos? If so I agree with you. I don't accept 'pure' Dust Theory.

Observing chaos is the same thing as having no discernible physical laws.

I took your use of the word 'worried' to say that I was afraid this was true.

Why?

Because I subjectively value my universe and do not wish to go to another one.

Comment by eitan_zohar on You are (mostly) a simulation. · 2015-07-18T18:48:59.318Z · score: 2 (4 votes) · LW · GW

I see a coherent, justified universe around me with apparently sound perceptions. Therefore, I conclude that it is overwhelmingly more likely that something is wrong with your reasoning/assumptions than I am a Boltzmann brain.

Seriously, Boltzmann brains are never ever the answer. Why do people keep using them?

Comment by eitan_zohar on You are (mostly) a simulation. · 2015-07-18T18:40:10.954Z · score: -2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I value other minds existing to interact with me, even if I can't perceive them directly. And I value waking up tomorrow in the same universe (more or less) that I'm in now.

Is this rational? Eliezer defines rationality as systematized winning; I'm pointing out what.

Comment by eitan_zohar on You are (mostly) a simulation. · 2015-07-18T18:38:30.541Z · score: -2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Now you just repeating Bostrom simulation argument.

Certainly not. The simulation argument just talks about one universe. I'm taking the multiverse into account.

Comment by eitan_zohar on You are (mostly) a simulation. · 2015-07-18T18:36:13.533Z · score: -1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

If there are two identical experiences, it doesn't actually affect the argument. Except that you would be wholly in a simulation (or not), and there would be less incentive for future FAIs to simulate you. Grim, if I took it seriously.

You are (mostly) a simulation.

2015-07-18T16:40:20.613Z · score: -4 (11 votes)
Comment by eitan_zohar on You are (mostly) a simulation. · 2015-07-18T16:39:54.256Z · score: -2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

If it's rational to prefer your perceptions to conform to an external reality, than it's rational to not want to be someone else every morning.

Comment by eitan_zohar on Open Thread, Jul. 13 - Jul. 19, 2015 · 2015-07-18T16:29:04.002Z · score: -3 (5 votes) · LW · GW

I'd like some way of discussing simulation anthropics with people who might comprehend the idea, since few on this website seem capable of it. Is there someone I could email with a reasonable chance of a response? Is there another website that deals with these subjects?

Comment by eitan_zohar on You are (mostly) a simulation. · 2015-07-18T16:23:40.951Z · score: -2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

You have said that what you are worried about is observing chaos,

I do not recall saying any such thing.

although you have also said that you have a solution to the no-physical-law problem of DT. So who knows?

I really don't know what the heck you are talking about. "No-physical-law" problem? And I thought I was bad at conveying these concepts.

ETA If you jump, but don't notice you are jumping, what is the problem.

The problem is that I prefer for my subjective consciousness to stay in one world.

Which is?

An extrapolation from a single coherent theory, which you apparently think works through 'observation.'

Comment by eitan_zohar on You are (mostly) a simulation. · 2015-07-18T07:10:19.299Z · score: -2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I feel somewhat bad for you so I may create another supporting thread to present and discuss this general topic.

That sounds like a good idea, but don't feel pressured. EDIT: Actually, I regret saying that. This is an urgent topic that needs to be discussed, and I people are too used to me creating desperate threads now to pay attention.

Also, it would really help if you link to earlier discuss of anthropics - some of these issues have been discussed at length here in the past.

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with these discussions.

I need a protocol for dangerous or disconcerting ideas.

2015-07-12T01:58:51.257Z · score: 3 (16 votes)

The Consequences of Dust Theory.

2015-07-09T15:53:53.157Z · score: 0 (14 votes)

Is this evidence for the Simulation hypothesis?

2015-06-28T23:45:29.939Z · score: 1 (6 votes)

A resolution to the Doomsday Argument.

2015-05-24T17:58:11.857Z · score: -2 (9 votes)

Misdiagnosed Asperger's syndrome is ruining my life.

2014-11-27T10:33:57.775Z · score: -4 (26 votes)

I may have just had a dangerous thought.

2014-09-22T20:04:17.171Z · score: 0 (17 votes)

Learning languages efficiently.

2014-03-02T15:57:53.578Z · score: 4 (7 votes)