solomon alon

• solomon alon 17 Oct 2023 17:13 UTC

  1 point

  1

  on: Fer­til­ity Roundup #2

  Evolution will eventually bring fertility back up to normal. It’s inevitable. I don’t know how long it will take. But it will happen. And so will exponential growth.

• solomon alon 8 Oct 2023 0:07 UTC

  0 points

  −10

  in reply to: Joseph Miller’s comment on: Sam Alt­man’s sister, An­nie Alt­man, says Sam has (severely) abused her

  From my understanding it’s incredibly unlikely. There are roughly two possibilities.

  1. This a false memory implanted by her therapist.

  2. She always had the memory but only realized what it was later or only decided to act on it later.

  Note often time children don’t process sexual assault as an incredibly traumatic until years later. either because a therapist brings a memory to the forefront or something happens to bring the memory to the forefront or even just learning about what sex is can cuase the memoru to be traumatic.

• solomon alon 1 Oct 2023 20:49 UTC

  3 points

  1

  on: My Effortless Weight­loss Story: A Quick Runthrough

  Ok so now make a prediction. What kind of data do you expect to see in clinical studies?

  For example do you expect RCT’s involving potassium chloride to cause weight loss? Do they actually cause weight loss?

• solomon alon 27 Jul 2023 23:11 UTC

  2 points

  0

  in reply to: Ilio’s comment on: Why no Ro­man In­dus­trial Revolu­tion?

  Except my intuition is that the Roman’s managed to evade mathlusian living conditions.

  Partial evidence: slavery an institution makes very little sense at the mathlusian boundary. Why pay for a slave when human labor costs the amount of food that it covers. (That’s the price of human labor in a mathlusian world)

• solomon alon 14 Jul 2023 20:07 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: gwern’s comment on: My Weirdest Experience

  Weirdly enough I dream tons about my phone and laptop. It’s usually how I know if I fell asleep or not(while napping during the day). Do I remember looking at my phone or not.

• solomon alon 12 Oct 2020 21:14 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: Jiro’s comment on: A full ex­pla­na­tion to New­comb’s para­dox.

  That’s a interesting point.

• solomon alon 12 Oct 2020 19:28 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: James_Miller’s comment on: A full ex­pla­na­tion to New­comb’s para­dox.

  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.

• solomon alon 12 Oct 2020 19:26 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: Rafael Harth’s comment on: A full ex­pla­na­tion to New­comb’s para­dox.

  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.

• solomon alon 12 Oct 2020 17:41 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: Anirandis’s comment on: A full ex­pla­na­tion to New­comb’s para­dox.

  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.

A full ex­pla­na­tion to New­comb’s para­dox.

In sup­port of the in­side view and a counter to mod­est episte­mol­ogy

• solomon alon 14 Apr 2019 2:03 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: Shmi’s comment on: Why is multi wor­lds not a good ex­pla­na­tion for abiogenesis

  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

• solomon alon 14 Apr 2019 2:00 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: avturchin’s comment on: Why is multi wor­lds not a good ex­pla­na­tion for abiogenesis

  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

• solomon alon 14 Apr 2019 1:52 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: avturchin’s comment on: Why is multi wor­lds not a good ex­pla­na­tion for abiogenesis

  thanks

• solomon alon 14 Apr 2019 1:46 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: Viliam’s comment on: Why is multi wor­lds not a good ex­pla­na­tion for abiogenesis

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

• solomon alon 12 Apr 2019 21:15 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: avturchin’s comment on: Why is multi wor­lds not a good ex­pla­na­tion for abiogenesis

  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

• solomon alon 12 Apr 2019 21:11 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: avturchin’s comment on: Why is multi wor­lds not a good ex­pla­na­tion for abiogenesis

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

  Thank you

• solomon alon 12 Apr 2019 21:10 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: avturchin’s comment on: Why is multi wor­lds not a good ex­pla­na­tion for abiogenesis

  thanks for the reply

  Can you please link me to these cosmologists

Why is multi wor­lds not a good ex­pla­na­tion for abiogenesis