Posts

A full explanation to Newcomb's paradox. 2020-10-12T16:48:46.416Z · score: -6 (9 votes)
In support of the inside view and a counter to modest epistemology 2019-05-13T15:21:57.624Z · score: -7 (8 votes)
Why is multi worlds not a good explanation for abiogenesis 2019-04-12T18:53:58.908Z · score: 3 (4 votes)

Comments

Comment by solomon-alon on A full explanation to Newcomb's paradox. · 2020-10-12T21:14:26.403Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

That's a interesting point. 

Comment by solomon-alon on A full explanation to Newcomb's paradox. · 2020-10-12T19:28:56.804Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

That's a valid point. Still I think four would still be the most likely and since the payoff is significantly bigger it's still worth it to choose just B.

Comment by solomon-alon on A full explanation to Newcomb's paradox. · 2020-10-12T19:26:10.948Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I started reading the FDT paper and it seems to make a lot more sense than TDT. And most importantly does not fail like TDT did in regards to roko's basilisk.

Comment by solomon-alon on A full explanation to Newcomb's paradox. · 2020-10-12T17:41:32.653Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I agree with you, I just was trying to emphasize that if your the real you your decision doesn't change anything. At most it can do is if the simulation is extremely accurate is it can reveal what was already chosen since you know that you will make the same decision as you previously made in the simulation. The big difference between me and timeless decision theory is that I contend that the only reason to choose just box B is because you might be in the simulation. This completely gets rid of ridiculous problems like roko's basilisk. Since we are not currently simulating a AI therefore a future AI cannot affect us. If the AI had the suspicion that it was in a simulation then it might have a incentive to torture people but given that it has no reason to think that, torture is a waste of time and effort. 

Comment by solomon-alon on Why is multi worlds not a good explanation for abiogenesis · 2019-04-14T02:03:02.629Z · score: 0 (2 votes) · LW · GW

while i can't actually understand what your saying because I don't understand physics well enough. As far as I know its not controversial to use the multi world model in the less wrong forums and that most people I respect use it fully. Is what your writing relevant to my question or to the entire lesswrong that believe that the many worlds explanation is correct

Comment by solomon-alon on Why is multi worlds not a good explanation for abiogenesis · 2019-04-14T02:00:18.717Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

while i have not read the link you sent and I plan on

They all seem to be referring to the fine tuning argument vs abiogenesis

Comment by solomon-alon on Why is multi worlds not a good explanation for abiogenesis · 2019-04-14T01:52:19.017Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

thanks

Comment by solomon-alon on Why is multi worlds not a good explanation for abiogenesis · 2019-04-14T01:46:49.133Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

that's what i thought but I was wondering why this is not used as a counter to theistic proof from abiogenesis

Comment by solomon-alon on Why is multi worlds not a good explanation for abiogenesis · 2019-04-12T21:15:31.333Z · score: 3 (4 votes) · LW · GW

It seems weird that given our laws of nature it would be more probable that boltzmann brains would form because boltzmann brains are more complicated than rna as far as I could tell

I thought the whole problem with boltzmann brains was in the fine tuning argument and the multiverse

Comment by solomon-alon on Why is multi worlds not a good explanation for abiogenesis · 2019-04-12T21:11:19.437Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Could you also link me to a good explanation of the odds of boltzmann brains

Thank you

Comment by solomon-alon on Why is multi worlds not a good explanation for abiogenesis · 2019-04-12T21:10:18.324Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

thanks for the reply

Can you please link me to these cosmologists