Re: Duplicates are Selves

From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Sat Apr 05 2003 - 15:09:27 MST

  • Next message: Reason: "RE: Help with a Minimum Wage Model"

    When I teleport, I want to anticipate a 100% subjective probability of
    being where I'm going, not a 50% subjective probability of being where I'm
    going. I therefore want to be moved, not copied.

    When I teleport, I prefer a "destructive" move to a nondestructive copy
    for the same reason that, given many-worlds theory, I'd rather have a
    million dollars in cash than buy a lottery ticket based on quantum-random
    information. There may be a 100% probability that *at least one of my
    branches* wins the lottery, but I want to anticipate a 100% *subjective*
    probability of having the money. Similarly, when I teleport, I prefer a
    "destructive" move to a nondestructive copy because I want to anticipate a
    100% probability of the "reward", in this case, being in the place I want
    to be.

    I don't really regard the move as "destructive" because if a pattern goes
    from time T to time T+1 through a series of causal interactions that
    involve interim storage on a hard drive, that's no more and no less
    continuity of pattern than the physical state of my body at time T+1 being
    determined by the unitary evolution of quantum mechanics from my physical
    state at time T. It's *all* quantum mechanics. The hard drive is quantum
    mechanics too. Does it matter how many interactions there are? What
    matters is just that you have a set of conditional probabilities which,
    applied in sequence, arrive at a developed pattern P2 for time T+1 which
    echoes the history of pattern P1 at time T.

    It certainly doesn't matter "which" particles you use. You can't possibly
    understand, say, Bose-Einstein statistics, and not realize that. Having
    photon A at position X and photon B at position Y is not just a state
    *indistinguishable* from B at X and A at Y, it is a state *identical* to B
    at X and A at Y, the *same state*, *exactly*, which is why we add the two
    complex probability amplitudes for ending up in that state.

    -- 
    Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
    Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 05 2003 - 15:21:23 MST