Randomly read this comment and I really enjoyed it, Turn it into a post? (I understand how annoying structuring complex thoughts coherently can be but maybe do a dialogue or something? I liked this.)
I largely agree with a lot of the missing things in people’s views of utility functions and so I think you expressed some of that in a pretty good deeper way.
When we get into acausality and evertt branches I think we’re going a bit off-track. I can think computational intractability and observer bias is something interesting to bring up but I always find it never leads anywhere. Quantum Mechanics is fundamentally observer invariant and so positing something like MWI is a philosophical stance (that is supported by occam’s razor) but it is still observer dependent, what if there are no observers?
Randomly read this comment and I really enjoyed it, Turn it into a post? (I understand how annoying structuring complex thoughts coherently can be but maybe do a dialogue or something? I liked this.)
Maybe I should try a dialogue with someone else on this, because I don’t think any of my points are very extendible to a full post without someone helping me.
Do you have any specific reason why you’re going into QMech when talking about brain-like AGI stuff?
To be frank, this was mostly about clarifying the philosophy around computationalism/human values in general, but I didn’t go that deep into QMech for brain-like AGI and don’t expect it to be immediately useful for my pursuits, so the only role for QMech here is in clarifying some confusions people have, and QMech wasn’t even that necessary to make my points.
When we get into acausality and evertt branches I think we’re going a bit off-track. I can think computational intractability and observer bias is something interesting to bring up but I always find it never leads anywhere. Quantum Mechanics is fundamentally observer invariant and so positing something like MWI is a philosophical stance (that is supported by occam’s razor) but it is still observer dependent, what if there are no observers?
Okay, the thing I think you are pointing to is that the same outcomes/rules can be generated out of ontologically distinct interpretations, and for our purposes, the observer is basically anything that interacts with anything, whether it’s a human or particle, and thus saying there are no observers corresponds to saying that there is nothing in the universe, including the forces, and in particular dark energy is exactly 0.
The answer is that it would be a very different universe than our universe is today.
Randomly read this comment and I really enjoyed it, Turn it into a post? (I understand how annoying structuring complex thoughts coherently can be but maybe do a dialogue or something? I liked this.)
I largely agree with a lot of the missing things in people’s views of utility functions and so I think you expressed some of that in a pretty good deeper way.
When we get into acausality and evertt branches I think we’re going a bit off-track. I can think computational intractability and observer bias is something interesting to bring up but I always find it never leads anywhere. Quantum Mechanics is fundamentally observer invariant and so positing something like MWI is a philosophical stance (that is supported by occam’s razor) but it is still observer dependent, what if there are no observers?
(Pointing at Physics as Information Processing)
Do you have any specific reason why you’re going into QMech when talking about brain-like AGI stuff?
Maybe I should try a dialogue with someone else on this, because I don’t think any of my points are very extendible to a full post without someone helping me.
To be frank, this was mostly about clarifying the philosophy around computationalism/human values in general, but I didn’t go that deep into QMech for brain-like AGI and don’t expect it to be immediately useful for my pursuits, so the only role for QMech here is in clarifying some confusions people have, and QMech wasn’t even that necessary to make my points.
Okay, the thing I think you are pointing to is that the same outcomes/rules can be generated out of ontologically distinct interpretations, and for our purposes, the observer is basically anything that interacts with anything, whether it’s a human or particle, and thus saying there are no observers corresponds to saying that there is nothing in the universe, including the forces, and in particular dark energy is exactly 0.
The answer is that it would be a very different universe than our universe is today.