Basically: LDT is the realisation that we should act as if our decisions will be reflected by every similarly rational agent that exists, it is one way of saying âall is one, you are not separate from othersâ. It could even be framed as a paraphrasing of a constrained notion of karma, in a way (âyour policy will be reflected back at you by othersâ). Whatâs extraordinary about it is it says these things in the most precise, pragmatic terms.
Metaphysical continuity of measure.. youâre probably familiar with the concept even if you wouldnât have a name for it.. like.. you know how people worry that being teleported would be a kind of death? Because thereâs an interruption, a discontinuity between selves? And then one may answer, âbut there is a similar, perhaps greater discontinuity every night, during sleep, but you donât seem to fear that.â I donât know how many of us have noticed this, Iâve met a few, but weâre starting to realise that anthropic measure, the substance of experience or subjectivity, there isnât some special relationship between observer-moments thatâre close in time and space, thereâs just a magnitude, and the magnitude can change over time. If we want to draw a line connecting observer-moments, itâs artificial.
So what Iâm getting at is, that substance of experience canât really be divided into a bunch of completely separate lines of experience. If we care about one beingâs experience, we should generally care about every beingâs experience. We donât have to, of course, because of the orthogonality thesis, but I think most people will once they get it.
I am familiar with the concept of superrationality, which seems similar with what you are describing. The lack of special relationship between observer momentsâletâs call it non-continuityâis also a common concept in many mystical traditions. I view both of these concepts as different than the concept of unity, âwe are all oneâ.
Superrationality combines a form of unity with a requirement for rationality. I could think that âwe are all oneâ without thinking that we should behave rationally. If I thought, âwe are all oneâ and and also that âone ought to be rationalâ, the behavior that results might be described as superrational.
Non-continuity is orthogonal to unity. I could think âwe are distinctâ and still think âI only exist in the momentâ. This might have been the view of Heraclitus. But I could also think âwe are oneâ and also think âwe only exist in the moment.â This might be a natural view to have if you think of the universe as an amplitude distribution over a large number of quantum states that is evolving according to some transition function. If you identify with a particular quantum state, then there is no sense in which you have a unique âpastâ or âfutureâ path, because all âmomentsâ (states) are concurrent: the only thing that is changing is the amplitude flow.
This sort of âeveryone who understands my ideas agrees with me, and everyone who doesnât agree just doesnât understandâ is never not annoying, even if you tack on a âmostâ or âalmostâ. Even if the ideas you describe were perfectly sensible, it would still be highly irritating to be faced with such a smug presentation of them.
However, in this case, what you say also seems incoherent.
In particular:
LDT is the realisation that we should act as if our decisions will be reflected by every similarly rational agent that exists
In this description of LDT, the phrase âsimilarly rationalâ is being forced to do almost all the work; and it is much too vague to be up to the task. The specific claim of LDT is:
Logical decision theory asserts that the principle of rational choice is âDecide as though you are choosing the logical output of your decision algorithm.â
That is very far from any notion of karma, any notion of âall is oneâ, etc. So even if we find logical decision theories to be attractive, and their claims convincing, that does not get us to any of the âspiritualâ claims you seem to want to make on those theoriesâ basis.
I donât know how many of us have noticed this, Iâve met a few, but weâre starting to realise that anthropic measure, the substance of experience or subjectivity, there isnât some special relationship between observer-moments thatâre close in time and space, thereâs just a magnitude, and the magnitude can change over time.
This does not actually seem to be a coherent sentence, much less a coherent thought, so I assume that youâve accidentally omitted some words; Iâll comment on this once youâve had a chance to rewrite it.
If we care about one beingâs experience, we should generally care about every beingâs experience.
This in absolutely no way follows from logical decision theory or anything related to it.
There are a lot of assumptions youâre making about the purpose/âsubtext of that comment. The comment is like, three exchanges into a conversation. It was not written for you. Its purpose was to name some ideas for snarles that theyâre probably already largely familiar with. It isnât supposed to teach or to expound enough detail that someone who didnât know a lot of what I was talking about would be able to refute any of it. That is not what weâre doing in this thread. There is a time and place for that. Seriously, Iâm probably going to have to write about this stuff properly at some point, and I hope youâll find it precise and coherent enough to engage with without frustration, when the time comes.
We are still a long way from arriving at the âinterestingâ thing that I alluded to, if weâre ever going to (Iâm not even totally sure Iâll be able to recover that thought).
In this description of LDT
I wasnât really trying to give an accurate description/âdefinition of LDT, itâs an entailment.
That is very far from any notion of karma
The easier we can make it for people to step from a superstition or a metaphor to a real formalised understanding, the better. If you say itâs a long walk, a lot of them wont set out.
This in absolutely no way follows from logical decision theory or anything related to it.
That paragraph was about anthropic measure continuity, not LDT
There are a lot of assumptions youâre making about the purpose/âsubtext of that comment. The comment is like, three exchanges into a conversation. It was not written for you.
I read the ancestor comments as well (and every other comment on this post, too). Whatever purpose or subtext was contained therein is available to me also, and to anyone else reading this public forum thread. If you prefer that something you write be read and responded to only by a single recipient, Less Wrong does have a private messaging system.
I wasnât really trying to give an accurate description/âdefinition of LDT, itâs an entailment.
What do you mean by âitâs an entailmentâ? What entails what?
The easier we can make it for people to step from a superstition or a metaphor to a real formalised understanding, the better. If you say itâs a long walk, a lot of them wont set out.
Are you suggesting a strategy of publicly professing positions we do not actually hold, and making claims we do not actually believe, in order to better persuade people (whom we believe to be in the grip of a supersition) to accept our ideas?
I hope I do not have to enumerate the profound problems with such a plan. I will name only one: itâs fundamentally dishonest and deceptive, and intellectually disrespectful of oneâs interlocutors. I strongly urge against attempting to employ any such tactics.
I am not familiar with those concepts. References would be appreciated. đ
Iâm not sure if these articles try to convey the personal, spiritual dimension of LDTâs claims about agency, but they describe what it is https://ââarbital.com/ââp/ââlogical_dt/ââ?l=5gc
Basically: LDT is the realisation that we should act as if our decisions will be reflected by every similarly rational agent that exists, it is one way of saying âall is one, you are not separate from othersâ. It could even be framed as a paraphrasing of a constrained notion of karma, in a way (âyour policy will be reflected back at you by othersâ). Whatâs extraordinary about it is it says these things in the most precise, pragmatic terms.
Metaphysical continuity of measure.. youâre probably familiar with the concept even if you wouldnât have a name for it.. like.. you know how people worry that being teleported would be a kind of death? Because thereâs an interruption, a discontinuity between selves? And then one may answer, âbut there is a similar, perhaps greater discontinuity every night, during sleep, but you donât seem to fear that.â I donât know how many of us have noticed this, Iâve met a few, but weâre starting to realise that anthropic measure, the substance of experience or subjectivity, there isnât some special relationship between observer-moments thatâre close in time and space, thereâs just a magnitude, and the magnitude can change over time. If we want to draw a line connecting observer-moments, itâs artificial.
So what Iâm getting at is, that substance of experience canât really be divided into a bunch of completely separate lines of experience. If we care about one beingâs experience, we should generally care about every beingâs experience. We donât have to, of course, because of the orthogonality thesis, but I think most people will once they get it.
Thanks for the link MakoYass.
I am familiar with the concept of superrationality, which seems similar with what you are describing. The lack of special relationship between observer momentsâletâs call it non-continuityâis also a common concept in many mystical traditions. I view both of these concepts as different than the concept of unity, âwe are all oneâ.
Superrationality combines a form of unity with a requirement for rationality. I could think that âwe are all oneâ without thinking that we should behave rationally. If I thought, âwe are all oneâ and and also that âone ought to be rationalâ, the behavior that results might be described as superrational.
Non-continuity is orthogonal to unity. I could think âwe are distinctâ and still think âI only exist in the momentâ. This might have been the view of Heraclitus. But I could also think âwe are oneâ and also think âwe only exist in the moment.â This might be a natural view to have if you think of the universe as an amplitude distribution over a large number of quantum states that is evolving according to some transition function. If you identify with a particular quantum state, then there is no sense in which you have a unique âpastâ or âfutureâ path, because all âmomentsâ (states) are concurrent: the only thing that is changing is the amplitude flow.
This sort of âeveryone who understands my ideas agrees with me, and everyone who doesnât agree just doesnât understandâ is never not annoying, even if you tack on a âmostâ or âalmostâ. Even if the ideas you describe were perfectly sensible, it would still be highly irritating to be faced with such a smug presentation of them.
However, in this case, what you say also seems incoherent.
In particular:
In this description of LDT, the phrase âsimilarly rationalâ is being forced to do almost all the work; and it is much too vague to be up to the task. The specific claim of LDT is:
(From âIntroduction to Logical Decision Theory for Analytic Philosophersâ on Arbital. Italics in original.)
That is very far from any notion of karma, any notion of âall is oneâ, etc. So even if we find logical decision theories to be attractive, and their claims convincing, that does not get us to any of the âspiritualâ claims you seem to want to make on those theoriesâ basis.
This does not actually seem to be a coherent sentence, much less a coherent thought, so I assume that youâve accidentally omitted some words; Iâll comment on this once youâve had a chance to rewrite it.
This in absolutely no way follows from logical decision theory or anything related to it.
There are a lot of assumptions youâre making about the purpose/âsubtext of that comment. The comment is like, three exchanges into a conversation. It was not written for you. Its purpose was to name some ideas for snarles that theyâre probably already largely familiar with. It isnât supposed to teach or to expound enough detail that someone who didnât know a lot of what I was talking about would be able to refute any of it. That is not what weâre doing in this thread. There is a time and place for that. Seriously, Iâm probably going to have to write about this stuff properly at some point, and I hope youâll find it precise and coherent enough to engage with without frustration, when the time comes.
We are still a long way from arriving at the âinterestingâ thing that I alluded to, if weâre ever going to (Iâm not even totally sure Iâll be able to recover that thought).
I wasnât really trying to give an accurate description/âdefinition of LDT, itâs an entailment.
The easier we can make it for people to step from a superstition or a metaphor to a real formalised understanding, the better. If you say itâs a long walk, a lot of them wont set out.
That paragraph was about anthropic measure continuity, not LDT
I read the ancestor comments as well (and every other comment on this post, too). Whatever purpose or subtext was contained therein is available to me also, and to anyone else reading this public forum thread. If you prefer that something you write be read and responded to only by a single recipient, Less Wrong does have a private messaging system.
What do you mean by âitâs an entailmentâ? What entails what?
Are you suggesting a strategy of publicly professing positions we do not actually hold, and making claims we do not actually believe, in order to better persuade people (whom we believe to be in the grip of a supersition) to accept our ideas?
I hope I do not have to enumerate the profound problems with such a plan. I will name only one: itâs fundamentally dishonest and deceptive, and intellectually disrespectful of oneâs interlocutors. I strongly urge against attempting to employ any such tactics.