Taking different actions in different manyworlds timelines
not quite sure how to tie this idea together or make it into a full post, so i’ll just write this here.
you can intentionally take different actions in different timelines, by using quantum random numbers.[1] this could be useful depending on your values. for example, let’s say you think duplicate utopias are still good, but with diminishing added value compared to the value the first has compared to a multiverse without any. it might follow that you would want to, for example, donate a full sum of money to multiple alignment orgs, each in some percent of timelines, rather than dividing it evenly between them in every timeline. the goal of this would be to maximize the probability that at least some timelines end up with an aligned ASI, by taking different actions in different timelines
not sure if it’ll be intuitively clear to readers, so i’ll elaborate here. let’s say a quantum experiment is done where it produces one outcome (a) in half of timelines, and another outcome (b) in the other half. by precommiting to take action 1 in timelines where outcome (a) happens, and action 2 in timelines where outcome (b) happens, the result is that both actions happen, each in 50% of timelines.
this can of course be generalized to more fine-grained percentages. e.g., if you repeat the experiment twice, you now have four possible outcome-combinations to divide up to 4 paths of action between.
This assumes there’s equal measure for each timeline. Typically, there’s no bias between a photon being polarized vertically vs being polarized horizontally after passing through a 45 degree polarization filter. But that only holds when the result’s consequences end there, at the measurement, without an ensuing butterfly effect; like just being buried in an excel spreadsheet lost to statistical reduction algorithms. This assumption fails when the measurement will cause a butterfly effect, and a bias in the measurement will be introduced.
Clearly, you’re more likely to find yourself on the thicker/longer timeline so there will always be a bias towards the qrng result that is correlated with safer future actions. A kind of ahead-of-schedule QS situation.
You’re also assuming you’re capable of pre-commiting to both action sequences you planned on, when you’ll just end up quitting if you don’t get the result you want. (The “since I didn’t get the timeline I wanted I’ll just scrap the whole idea” mindset). For your idea to work, you’d need to be capable of carrying out even the “bad” timeline to its fulfillment. If you aren’t, then even if you got the “good” timeline, it’s pointless since your counterfactual self already quit and you’re alone.
To help, pre-commit to merely a temporary divergence, and then schedule a “re-synchronization” event where you can become correlated to your counterfactual self again. For ex, “two weeks after the measurement I will sit at (x,y) coordinates at t time as still as possible reading the Bible for 20 mins, regardless of what measurement result I see.”
One more issue, not every bit from a qrng result is true quantum random. This is why quantum computers need like a 1000 “shots” (repeats of running the qAlgorithm) to do their thing. For a free qrng, it’s probably like 1 out of 10,000 received bits are true quantum random. The rest are just thermal randomness. Still random, but not “my counterfactual self’s timeline is a mere one hamming-distance away (1 qbit) from my actual timeline” random. It’s still low though, like <1,000 qbits away, which would still work for your purposes.
Finally, a surprising positive: your idea doesn’t actually require modal realism (eg, Everett) to work in a decision theory sense.
Actually, I have one more warning. If you carry out your idea and then things start “getting weird” after a few thousand qbits, just call on the expert of counterfactuals to help you: Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Yeah, you’re going to need Him.
Taking different actions in different manyworlds timelines
not quite sure how to tie this idea together or make it into a full post, so i’ll just write this here.
you can intentionally take different actions in different timelines, by using quantum random numbers.[1] this could be useful depending on your values. for example, let’s say you think duplicate utopias are still good, but with diminishing added value compared to the value the first has compared to a multiverse without any. it might follow that you would want to, for example, donate a full sum of money to multiple alignment orgs, each in some percent of timelines, rather than dividing it evenly between them in every timeline. the goal of this would be to maximize the probability that at least some timelines end up with an aligned ASI, by taking different actions in different timelines
not sure if it’ll be intuitively clear to readers, so i’ll elaborate here. let’s say a quantum experiment is done where it produces one outcome (a) in half of timelines, and another outcome (b) in the other half. by precommiting to take action 1 in timelines where outcome (a) happens, and action 2 in timelines where outcome (b) happens, the result is that both actions happen, each in 50% of timelines.
this can of course be generalized to more fine-grained percentages. e.g., if you repeat the experiment twice, you now have four possible outcome-combinations to divide up to 4 paths of action between.
I agree with the factual correctness of this, but I don’t personally consider the outcome you describe an improvement over the status quo.
This assumes there’s equal measure for each timeline. Typically, there’s no bias between a photon being polarized vertically vs being polarized horizontally after passing through a 45 degree polarization filter. But that only holds when the result’s consequences end there, at the measurement, without an ensuing butterfly effect; like just being buried in an excel spreadsheet lost to statistical reduction algorithms. This assumption fails when the measurement will cause a butterfly effect, and a bias in the measurement will be introduced.
Clearly, you’re more likely to find yourself on the thicker/longer timeline so there will always be a bias towards the qrng result that is correlated with safer future actions. A kind of ahead-of-schedule QS situation.
You’re also assuming you’re capable of pre-commiting to both action sequences you planned on, when you’ll just end up quitting if you don’t get the result you want. (The “since I didn’t get the timeline I wanted I’ll just scrap the whole idea” mindset). For your idea to work, you’d need to be capable of carrying out even the “bad” timeline to its fulfillment. If you aren’t, then even if you got the “good” timeline, it’s pointless since your counterfactual self already quit and you’re alone.
To help, pre-commit to merely a temporary divergence, and then schedule a “re-synchronization” event where you can become correlated to your counterfactual self again. For ex, “two weeks after the measurement I will sit at (x,y) coordinates at t time as still as possible reading the Bible for 20 mins, regardless of what measurement result I see.”
One more issue, not every bit from a qrng result is true quantum random. This is why quantum computers need like a 1000 “shots” (repeats of running the qAlgorithm) to do their thing. For a free qrng, it’s probably like 1 out of 10,000 received bits are true quantum random. The rest are just thermal randomness. Still random, but not “my counterfactual self’s timeline is a mere one hamming-distance away (1 qbit) from my actual timeline” random. It’s still low though, like <1,000 qbits away, which would still work for your purposes.
Finally, a surprising positive: your idea doesn’t actually require modal realism (eg, Everett) to work in a decision theory sense.
Actually, I have one more warning. If you carry out your idea and then things start “getting weird” after a few thousand qbits, just call on the expert of counterfactuals to help you: Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Yeah, you’re going to need Him.
does this apply to the site linked? if so, can you source this?
(p.s not sure who downvoted you, but it wasn’t me, and i probably won’t downvote others on my shortform in principle to encourage engagement)