Having never read Permutation City, I would find a summary of Dust theory essential to understanding this post, which goal presently eludes me.
SPOILER ALERT
The basic idea is this: If the physical world (including consciousness) is just a succession of states, then why would it matter that these states occur sequentially in time and at the same place? The Dust Theory is the idea that it doesn't matter -- that the same collection of bits that describes the universe we experience also describes some ridiculously large number of other universes.
There's more on Egan's site, although it might be hard to follow if you haven't read the book:
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/PERMUTATION/FAQ/FAQ.html (edit: linked in TFA, I see now.)
The book is excellent, by the way.
I'm haunted by Solipsism. We should start a support group.
No, seriously. If LW had a forum, this would be one of its sections.
There's something terribly ironic that I can't put my finger on, about a support group for people haunted by solipsism.
I once received a letter from an eminent logician, Mrs. Christine Ladd Franklin, saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were no others. Coming from a logician, this surprise surprised me.
Note that the problem of "Why do I perceive order instead of disorder?" isn't unique to this metaphysical dust theory business. Given that I expect the universe to eventually settle into thermal equilibrium, why do I believe that I'm not a Boltzmann brain temporarily and randomly formed out of that great chaos?
I'm not sure if it counts as "purely logical", but another problem with Dust theory is that it assumes that conscious states supervene on brain states instantaneously. There is no evidence for that. We seem to be conscious moment-by-moment, but the "moments" in question are rather coarse-grained, corresponding to the specious present of 0.025-0.25 second or so. It's quite compatible with the phenomenology that it requires thousands or millions of neural events or processing steps to achieve a subjective instant of consciousness. Which ...
Isn't this, along with so many other problems, a candidate for our sometime friend the anthropic principle? That is: only in a conscious configuration field which has memories of perceptions of an orderly universe is the dust theory controversial or doubted?
The Anthropic Principle conditions on the fact of our existence. But you seem to be conditioning on the fact that we don't accept dust theory. That makes no sense - you could explain absolutely any observation that way!
Maybe that's not what you meant, but I don't see how the A. P. is relevant here.
Tegmark's level IV multiverse is the only explanation I've ever heard for why there is something rather than nothing. I intuitively lean toward it for that reason. Of course, I don't know how to put a measure on that space that explains my subjective experience, but that seems like a much smaller problem then the most fundamental problem of why anything exists in the first place.
Personally, I'd like to hear alternatives to Tegmark's theory more than I'd like to hear rebuttals.
Tegmark's level IV multiverse is the only explanation I've ever heard for why there is something rather than nothing.
You can tell when something has been explained because it no longer has the same air of mystery that it did at the start. The Level IV hypothesis might very well be true, but it's not an explanation.
I've tried to formalize the Dust argument, though I don't know if it actually succeeds at being deductively valid. FYI, I don't believe the conclusions are true, necessarily, I'm just working through the argument. There is for sure plenty wrong with it.
Subjective experience is found anytime there are mental states where relation K obtains. (K is something like the psychological or memorial continuity relation that gets used in personal identity theory, but I'm not sure I can define it except by appealing to the brain: where m1 and m2 are mental states an
Isn't this, along with so many other problems, a candidate for our sometime friend the anthropic principle? That is: only in a conscious configuration field which has memories of perceptions of an orderly universe is the dust theory controversial or doubted? In the vastly more numerous conscious configuration fields with memories of perceptions of a chaotic and disorderly universe lacking a rational way to support the observer the dust theory could be accepted a priori or at least be a favored theory.
Ahem, this is circular logic. "The vast majority...
I don't think that really works. The problem is "I perceive far more order than would be needed for me to (briefly) exist from this moment"
ie, I observe that my surroundings seem to match my recent memories, etc etc..
QM arguably IS dust theory, just that one adds on a few rules for how the arrangements relate to each other, and then assign to each a complex number and have various rules for those relate to each other, how that changes, etc...
Isn't this, along with so many other problems, a candidate for our sometime friend the anthropic principle? That is: only in a conscious configuration field which has memories of perceptions of an orderly universe is the dust theory controversial or doubted?
How is this not a fully general argument against ever trying to explain anything?
I say we are in a simulation. I'm not sure what the precise definition of 'simulation' is, but it should be a broad enough concept to include the universe, whatever the universe is. The universe may not be a directed simulation, it may not be a simulation that has a beginning and an end, and even the continuity of it may be a complete illusion. But I cannot imagine how anything at a sufficient level of detail could be interpreted as not a simulation; that is, as something that isn't computed or doesn't run with some mix of mechanical and random rules.
In th...
If we take the possibility of dust scenarios as a given, then perhaps our observation of a coherent universe can be explained by some idea of the "measure" of different possible universes/simulations. That is, if all possible universes are some Turing machine, then perhaps the simplest Turing machines have in some sense higher probability/measure, and the simplest machines that contain observers are still on the relatively simple and lawful side.
edit: or perhaps it's that lawful simulations have a higher density of observers.
I tend to ignore the dust theory simply because entities which are implemented as scattered states throughout spacetime can't be interacted with. Even just inverting the order of the states is enough to make interaction impossible - two observers with opposite time directions don't see each other as having any memories of past interactions.
It has been well over a year since I first read Permutation City and relating writings on the internet on Greg Egan's dust theory. It still haunts me. The theory has been discussed tangentially in this community, but I haven't found an article that directly addresses the rationality of Egan's own dismissal of the theory.
In the FAQ, Egan says things like:
I wrote the ending as a way of dramatising[sic] a dissatisfaction I had with the “pure” Dust Theory that I never could (and still haven't) made precise (see Q5): the universe we live in is more coherent than the Dust Theory demands, so there must be something else going on.
and:
I have yet to hear a convincing refutation of it on purely logical grounds...
However, I think the universe we live in provides strong empirical evidence against the “pure” Dust Theory, because it is far too orderly and obeys far simpler and more homogeneous physical laws than it would need to, merely in order to contain observers with an enduring sense of their own existence. If every arrangement of the dust that contained such observers was realised, then there would be billions of times more arrangements in which the observers were surrounded by chaotic events, than arrangements in which there were uniform physical laws.
Isn't this, along with so many other problems, a candidate for our sometime friend the anthropic principle? That is: only in a conscious configuration field which has memories of perceptions of an orderly universe is the dust theory controversial or doubted? In the vastly more numerous conscious configuration fields with memories of perceptions of a chaotic and disorderly universe lacking a rational way to support the observer the dust theory could be accepted a priori or at least be a favored theory.
It is fine to dismiss dust theory because it simply isn't very helpful and because it has no predictions, testable or otherwise. I suppose it is also fine never to question the nature of consciousness as the answers don't seem to lead anywhere helpful either; though the question of it will continue to vex some instances of these configuration states.