From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Sun Apr 06 2003 - 23:37:38 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
>
>>Perhaps you have not sufficiently internalized this branching
>>aspect of selfhood if you cannot understand why I would want
>>as much of myself as possible to go into the best available
>>branch; a nonbranching transition to Disneyland is better than
>>a branching transition to Disneyland, for the same reason that
>>a million dollars cash is better than a quantum lottery ticket.
>
> Yes, even in those million-to-one duplication events I just
> described, I'd prefer all my duplicates to go to the preferred
> event. Yet if it's a choice between me *not* getting a duplicate
> made, and having it made in an inconvenient location, I'll choose
> the latter. The ratio of outcomes is not the right way to look
> at this---what is correct is the total run time I get, and that's
> why probability also is not appropriate.
"Total run time" seems to break down very fast in the presence of either
MWI or an open cosmos - your total run time is apparently increasing at an
exponential rate of 10^150 branchings per second, within which a mere
twofold duplication would scarcely be noticed, or else is simply infinite.
In both cases the non-renormalized ethics of branching breaks down,
while renormalized ethics continue with nary a blink; "it all adds up to
normality".
>>I *do* anticipate being in both places. That's *why* I want a move rather
>>than a copy. I *want* be in the grocery and I anticipate the frustration
>>of the Eliezer who finds himself still at home. When I snap my fingers I
>>should just go where I want, dammit!
>
> But the *moving* is inferior in most copy scenarios because you get
> less run time.
"Less run time" seems a remarkably fragile concept. The *relative* amount
of runtime *this version* of you gets determines the *relative* weighting
of this present in your past self's future. You should care which future
versions of you get the most runtime. But how can you tell whether your
present has a "little" or a "lot" of runtime? As far as I can tell, you
cannot. This leads me to propose that "runtime" is a relative quantity
used in renormalization of futures, rather than an absolute quantity that
applies to the present.
(And then he gave a quiet, mysterious smile.)
-- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 06 2003 - 23:46:57 MDT