This is all very true, but maybe some realities actually are more conducive to wonder than others, and maybe a reality with (natural and ontologically basic, not human-created) magic would be more wonderful than ours is, just as ours with relativity and QM might be more wonderful than one with purely classical physics. Still, I don't see why we couldn't eventually tweak ourselves to see the real world as as wondrous as we want.

Ok, but, can we read your stories anyway?

So weird... This theme has been in my thoughts today and recently...

Tell that to my level 82 orc wizard with tier 11 gear!

I wish this kind of stuff was taught to more children. Too few people fall in love with reality.

Savage - Same here... Weird indeed!

Eliezer - Just a thought... You wrote: "They might be excited at first, but (like the lottery winners who, six months later, aren't nearly as happy as they expected to be), the excitement would soon wear off."

I've just begun delving into the science of happiness and there found among many things, exactly what you hint at here. That most people have an inborn level of happiness, which they eventually revert to no matter what happens to them in their lives. In my research I stumbled upon a survey that stated that however frightening the prospect of being paralyzed may seem, before being paralyzed, a surprising (I don't know how they really determined the surprising-level here though) number of people actually ended up being as overall happy as they were befor being paralyzed. So no matter if youre winning milions or being paralyzed, you will usually revert to your inborn level of happiness.

I have no idea if this is true, but I find it interessting, and what you wrote struck a cord in me. Among other things because Iv'e been a fantasyfan and roleplayer for more than 15 years now.

What I really wanted to comment on is that the same people tha... (read more)

Dammit... While I was typing my words of wisdom, trying to spell my way through my second language, at least two people beat me to it and described my point in fewer words and in more eloquent language, than I ever could.

Dammit... Not being unique! 'scuse me for wishing for magical abilities ;)

Martin, like most people who apologize for having English as a second language, your posts are clearer than those of many people who have English as a first language.

I read fantasy, though less so now, mainly because it is groups of people banding together to achieve a goal they knew was just or worthwhile (generally saving the world, defeating the evil forces). The actual magic was just a spice that leant an air of mystery, and unpredictability (so I am more a fan of George Martin, David Gemmell and Guy Gavriel Kay rather than Raymond E. Feist and David Eddings. Robert Jordan lost me when the good guys split up into bickering factions).

I'm just disappointed that AI is at the herding cats stage (myself included), when ... (read more)

I like quoting this passage from Joyce Carol Oates' profile of H.P. Lovecraft (King of the Weird):

Readers of genre fiction, unlike readers of what we presume to call "literary fiction," assume a tacit contract between themselves and the writer: they understand that they will be manipulated, but the question is how? and when? and with what skill? and to what purpose? However plot-ridden, fantastical, or absurd, populated by whatever pseudo-characters, genre fiction is always resolved, while "literary fiction" makes no such promises; ther... (read more)

But I'm annoyed with this psychology that, if it were born into a world where spells and potions did work, would pine away for a world where household goods were abundantly produced by assembly lines.

Why do you desire to have cross-world consistency? You are only going to have to live in one of them. No Dutch book can be made against us by selling us tickets to that world here and then selling us tickets back to this one from there. If such transport were possible, than I agree that we need to reexamine our psychology to avoid constantly being on the bus between worlds. Until then, what's wrong with having world-dependent preferences?

Matthew C., commenting here on OB, seems very excited about an informally specified "theory" by Rupert Sheldrake which "explains" such non-explanation-demanding phenomena as protein folding and snowflake symmetry.

Actually Eliezer I'm much more excited to be in nature doing landscape photography, spending time with my family, seeing if I can make money trading stocks, and chatting about the nondual nature of reality, among other things.

I'm become totally and completely uninterested in arguing with people who refuse to acquaint themselv... (read more)

Martin wants to be uniquely powerful and higher-status, but this request can only be granted to a few people, barring delusive holodecks, so it's not a good project for utilitarians;

Tarleton suggests that a reality with fundamental magic is more wonderful, but this is probably impossible even in principle, because magic is too complex to be atomic;

But rfriel's, Harris's, and Pearson's versions of magic's appeal - "I want to be individually empowered by producing neato effects myself, without large capital investments and many specialists helping" and "I want the neato things I do to have a more natural user interface" are in principle doable - you can get this with, say, the right kind of nanotechnology, or (ahem) other sufficiently advanced tech, and bring it to a large user base, as long as they have the basic psychological ability to take joy in anything that is merely real.

Latanius I do agree with your small world idea, although not explicitly stated in my first comment, I have thought about it. Actually the people I mentioned earlier who studied the "science of happiness" pointed out that the relative happiness have many different boundaries. We measure ourselves up against our immediate vicinity, the small world that we inhabit. We can't really imagine how an african with AIDS and lifethreatening hunger might feel and thus can't really use it to make ourselves any happier. In comparison I can feel much happier if... (read more)

So - and let me be sure I have this straight - you think people are silly for finding attractive fictitious worlds in which reality can be altered through the grasp of principles ingrained deeply within the human mind and the application of pure will and desire, rather than wanting to gain expertise in real-world laws that are deeply unintuitive and that provide us with relatively little scope for doing as we please?

[facepalm]

Your fantasies are rather... dry.

In my flawed self-analysis, I've noticed myself have 2 kinds of wonder, and I think this might be a common theme to other people.

1. Wonder of novelty -- when something hasn't been experienced before and it is there is a great freshness from seeing it for the first time if it's interesting, colourful etc. This is where things like the travel bug comes from, and better fulfilled by Westerners through going to Rajasthan than Salisbury

2. Wonder of understanding -- this is the wonder of knowing something for an extended period of time and still being amazed by it

Eliezer sayeth: "I want to be individually empowered by producing neato effects myself, without large capital investments and many specialists helping" ... [is] in principle doable - you can get this with, say, the right kind of nanotechnology, or (ahem) other sufficiently advanced tech, and bring it to a large user base..."

Agreed. But as you hint, Eliezer, this case is indistinguishable from magic. So arguably the class of fantasies I mention are equivalent to living in some interesting future. In any case they don't seem to match the sc... (read more)

The idea that you're not significant is invalid in the internet age. You can write an operating system in your mom's basement and distribute it around the world.

I was listening to a public radio philosophy podcast on itunes, and it was a short essay by Arthur Shopenhauer. This post reminded me of him. One of the big ideas of his essay was that a human beings biggest problem, besides having to be nullified by eternity, is that we are perpetually becoming without ever being. Time never consumes a single point without having already moved on, forever. Our cells are constantly growing and dying and changing. Our bodies are never the same from one slice of time to the next. He eventually, i think, would argue wiht you ... (read more)

Eliezer, I'm pretty much the opposite of Matthew C on issues of reductionism and whatnot, but you were really stretching it with your armchair psychologizing/mind-reading. Also, couldn't your rebuke apply equally as well to someone excited about this newfangled "special relativity" rather than tried-and-true Maxwell's Equations or "general relativity" rather than the older special relativity? What is interesting is tends to be novel.

Beautifully written. Someone should submit this to Digg, Reddit, Slashdot, etc.

I think that the human desire for magic is closely tied to the desire for something new. The things that we do with science would be just as impressive to medieval-tech magicians as their magic would be to us. But we already understand most of our technology- we know what it's used for, what it can do and what it can't, how much it costs on eBay, and so on. To steal a metaphor, human excitement is like a gas that expands to fill the available space. If you dumped a medieval knig... (read more)

"When you can sing things into existence, you're deeply connected to the nature of existence."

I think you're reading too much into it. A medieval peasant would gawk at an electric light.

To clarify my earlier comment: The major disconnect is between things we've already studied and things we haven't, not between reality and unreality. If, tomorrow, we discovered a new combination of EM fields that could remotely levitate random objects, it would qualify as amazing new magic- even though it's based off of well-understood theories and nobody's writt... (read more)

A medieval peasant would gawk at an electric light, but that doesn't mean magic doesn't appeal more to the human psyche than technology in a way that would cause a person in a world with magic to be more easily able to find wonder in the real than someone in our world - magic and reality are not "identical on some calibrated amazingness metric". This was the point of my previous post; I disagreed with Eliezer's implicit message in the original post that a world with magic would be no more wonderful, once you're used to it, than the real world. Th... (read more)

Or more simply: magic is appealing for the same reason a Super Happy Agent is appealing - it means the universe cares about us.

Eliezer, you seem to be deeply offended by the fact that many people enjoy fantasy over reality, or don't get a kick out of science. As you put it, they don't have the scientific attitude that "nothing is mere".

Yet why should you expect people to be different from the way they are?

You said it yourself: "Part of binding yourself to reality, on an emotional as well as intellectual level, is coming to terms with the fact that you do live here."

That means accepting the reality that people like the things they like, not wishing for a fantasy world where people magically like the things you think they ought to.

Further on reality:

A poem or story about ghosts or dragons is a product of a human mind, made possible by the evolution of imagination in humans, and influenced by that human's experiences and cultural heritage.

In other words, it's just as much a part of the natural world as the song of a bird.

People who enjoy the products of others' imaginations are enjoying an aspect of reality, just as much as those who like watching the play of light on water, or admire how a tree grows according to natural law.

Thank you Eliezer. That is all I have to say.

Wendy: That means accepting the reality that people like the things they like, not wishing for a fantasy world where people magically like the things you think they ought to.

Okay, now that is exactly what I do not mean by saying, "Bind your heart into reality, rather than somewhere else."

What you've just described is an opportunity to help people think differently. Down the line, it's a moral choice about whether human beings should modify themselves in certain ways.

It does not require magic, an unlawful universe, to speak of a future in which people are not always yearning for unlawfulness, or, perhaps, yearning less forcefully.

Caledonian: . When you can sing things into existence, you're deeply connected to the nature of existence.

When you can PLAN things into existence, you're deeply connected to the nature of existence.

There is no possible spell as wonderful as the ability to think. There is one ultimate superpower and it is what we are.

Feeding material into a universal replicator and getting whatever you want manufactured may require astoundingly complex science and engineering, but no one's going to be particularly impressed once the novelty has worn off.

The rat... (read more)

We care about each other. This suffices. It is not necessary that the universe be like a human, because humans are like humans.

Suffices for you. Your aesthetics are not most people's aesthetics, although they probably are better in this respect.

Eliezer - "an opportunity to help people think differently"?

But what for?

And: "a moral choice about whether human beings should modify themselves in certain ways"?

Again; what for? Enjoyment of life increases physical and emotional health. Each person's enjoyment is a matter of individual taste. Why mess with it?

Aren't you just biased against people who have different tastes from yours? Please note my comments above on imagination as part of the natural world.

It is simply a fact that human psychology does not operate in the way Eliezer says it should, does not evaluate itself in the way Eliezer says it should, and does not value the things Eliezer says it should.

More to the point, Eliezer has not produced justification for his claims about what people should do - he has merely made the assertions.

When you can PLAN things into existence, you're deeply connected to the nature of existence.

1) The only thing we can plan into existence is plans. Anything else requires additional, actual effort and resources.

2) ... (read more)

For some reason, this song feels relevant to the discussion.

Audio available from: http://www.pcplanets.com/mp3s-1353833-Rich-Fantasy-Lives.shtml Lyrics at: http://www.tomsmithonline.com/lyrics/rich_fantasy_lives.htm

If you personally did the astoundingly complex science and engineering to build the replicator, drinking that Earl Grey tea would be a lot more satisfying.

One of the fundamental differences between technology and magic is that two engineers do twice as much work as one would do, while a more powerful sorcerer gets farther than 10 not so powerful ones. It matters more how good you are than how many of you exist.

What NBA players do looks similar in quality to the thing you did with your friends at home, because even if you play well, you five can't put ... (read more)

Eliezer: We care about each other. This suffices. It is not necessary that the universe be like a human, because humans are like humans.

Nick: Suffices for you. Your aesthetics are not most people's aesthetics, although they probably are better in this respect.

I wonder if anyone can come up with a good argument as to why it is actually better to live in a non-personal, non-caring universe than in a caring one. Eliezer or Nick: if you could choose between possible universes, would you choose one with a loving creator god/ Super Happy Agent? would you choose ... (read more)

"One of the fundamental differences between technology and magic is that two engineers do twice as much work as one would do"

This is demonstrably untrue; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month.

"Engineers can, so the things you create with technology aren't comparable to the products of big companies,"

If this were true, startups wouldn't exist.

"I wonder if anyone can come up with a good argument as to why it is actually better to live in a non-personal, non-caring universe than in a caring one."

I think Eli's ar... (read more)

I disagree with your premise that if dragons did exit that they wouldn't interest people. I haven't read through the comments, so I don't know if anyone's addressed this yet, but there are real world analogies that disprove your point. Sharks for instance. Sharks are very real, and you can take a trip out into open water to spend time with the more dangerous varieties if you wish. The Great White that was at the SF aquarium generated a great deal of attention. People still like zebras but aren't usually as fascinated by them. The reason is that sharks are dangerous. Dragons, one would imagine, would be even more dangerous. They would probably attract even more attention.

@tom: I think Eli's argument is that a caring universe isn't necessary for happiness. If he thought that the universe should stay uncaring, he wouldn't be trying to develop FAI.

hmmm. First off, I'd like to distinguish between a universe where a "caring" structure is built on top of an uncaring physical reality (e.g. this universe, where the caring structure might be modern society, or a future utopia powered by a FAI), and a universe where the caring-ness, magic or/and importance of human conscious minds is inbuilt at the lowest level of "ph... (read more)

Eliezer, do you think that this search for magic and mystery always outside the known world is some side-effect of human reinforcement learning?

As far as I know it could be a loose knob on the tuning device for the exploit/explore tradeoff.

Also, for some reason, I feel like posting this song. "The Future Soon" by Jonathan Coulton: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDiDK_yBCw0&NR=1

Roko, you should be careful about saying that a materialist universe is better than a caring universe. If this is true, then a caring universe would make itself look like a materialist universe, just in order to be better, since a caring universe would want to do the better thing. So a claim like this would remove all your reasons for believing in a materialist universe, since a caring universe would become indistinguishable from a materialist one.

For similar reasons, it is obvious that Eliezer thinks a caring universe would be better: this is illustrated, for example, in his disagreement with the universe about whether stupidity should be punished with the death penalty.

"If this is true, then a caring universe would make itself look like a materialist universe, just in order to be better, since a caring universe would want to do the better thing."

• aah. I was thinking of a "limitedly caring" universe, for example one where magic works. Perhaps I should think of a better word than caring... I'm want to say something like "a universe where the underlying laws take human desires into account in a direct way, but without the universe necessarily being smart enough to work out what is ultimately best f

I see an parallel(possibly tenuous) in the subculture of martial arts. The "mundane" stuff like boxing, High School and Collegiate wrestling, judo, Thai kickboxing etc. actually works but lacks any pretensions toward 'mystical' aspects or secret/underground/killer whatever. Effectively, the more an art is associated with streetfighting/ninjas/commandos the crappier it typically is, ceteris parabus.

To me, this seems to be a domain specific example of the overarching phenomena discussed here. Science is too 'common' to possibly be worth studying as... (read more)

I'm not satisfied with the real world, but, as Eliezer says, this has more to do with me than with the rest of the world. Unlike the hypothetical person described in this post, however, I don't expect that any of the fantasy worlds that I read about in novels actually would be any more satisfying. I really don't know what would make me satisfied over the long run, short of hacking my own brain, or, perhaps, getting a cat. ;)

Roko, I strongly suspect that a limitedly caring universe just reduces to a materialist universe with very complex laws. For example, isn't it kind of like magic that when I want to lift my hand, it actually moves? What would be the difference if I could levitate or change lead into gold? If the universe obeys my will about lifting my hand, why shouldn't it obey in other things, and if it did, why would this be an essential difference?

While a zebra is a zebra, and a wonderful creature it is, a dragon is what the writer wants it to be. A dragon is metaphoric and might symbolize anything from luck to Lucifer.

Were there no magic in our literary world, there'd be less imagery and fewer ways to convey the dynamic and profound, eh?

Double, double toil and trouble
Fire burn, and caldron bubble.
Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the caldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt, and toe of frog,
Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's l... (read more)

"Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology." - Larry Niven

I thought that was Arthur C. Clarke (RIP).

I agree with the basic argument of the post: magic is exciting because it's unattainable. The moment it became real and in mass-use, the novelty would wear off. I'm happily smitten with current and upcoming technology. One example: I still get sufficiently blown away when I think about the ramifications of a camera that captures millions of frames per second. I read about it 4-5 years ago. Forget 1 Mississippi, 2 Mississi... (read more)

Great post. Just to add: the primary caveat for most of us, while carving out our fantasy worlds, is that not everyone can perform magic - only me, a few friends and maybe my dog. It wouldn't be that normal or mundane, taken in that light. In the same vein, if I was a kickass gadget maker in this reality, I'd still be pretty appreciative.

I'd agree with Eliezer on the idea that happiness depends on being able to appreciate the world that you live in, regardless of its laws.

In a world where you can quickly manipulate underlying structure for quick satisfaction, the desire to understand more or improve (for humans at least) is quickly ignored because you can quickly achieve what you want. In Terry Pratchett's 'The Last Hero', the equivalent of Leonardo da Vinci is considered strange by wizards, as they deliberately begin by deciding what they want and then phrasing the spell, whereas he take... (read more)

"Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology." - Larry Niven

I thought that was Arthur C. Clarke (RIP).

The Arthur C. Clarke quote is "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

The Niven quote interchanges "magic" and "technology" to make a different point. "Sufficiently advanced magic," meaning magic that is well described by an author and has well-defined rules, would act in the same manner as technology in a science fiction novel. The more defined the r... (read more)

Although the discussion on magic is really secondary here (a catalyst, methinks), let me try to add something. And although I think it won't be as valuable as the insight that magic seems to mimic psychology and so is more (obviously) romantic than science (not un-romantic, just less obviously so), that insight itself fits here. As well as graduate school which, I think, has all to do with our views on magic. And then I will finish with my one tidbit on why I think those of nerdy-bent would prefer a world with magic to a world of science.

While there are ma... (read more)

"Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology." - Larry Niven

Perhaps in some alternate reality, but in this one, Arthur C. Clarke was the one who coined that particular truism.

No, Clarke said "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

I've studied contemporary magic (or magick), call it what you will, and it seems to me that for most people the thrill of it is in creativity of it and learning to understand it. Also, uncharted territory is part of the appeal. In a sense this is the same about learning new subjects. In the case of magick, what you are learning is exciting because it's not generally something people pay attention to. But it can also be a really good feeling to have ideas that know one else has regarding other subjects, like in philosophy or art.

This is ringing false to me and I'm trying to put my finger on why.

Lewis and Tolkien, who founded modern fantasy, wrote a lot in defense of "escapist" literature. I'm writing from memory here, but I seem to remember that they thought that the "journalistic" style of fiction popular in the mid-20th century was seriously lacking. The focus on "hard reality," "no one is a hero," "social problems," and so on. That kind of "realism" isn't actually all that real -- it doesn't express the whole of th... (read more)

I know this is an old post, but I think you're missing something. If a person from this world were sucked into a world with dragons, xe would have spent xyr whole life thinking "dragons are awesome" and would therefore think they were really, really cool the first time xe saw one, and possibly for quite a while after. Possibly long enough to last until the Generic Evil Dark Lord Guy is defeated.

And second, often, these people don't just live a mundane existence with magic. They're often the Chosen Hero Of Whatever, which makes them much more impo... (read more)

I felt mildly guilty for enjoying fantasy stories when I read this (probably not the author's intent) but then, thinking on it further, I realized this was unjustified. The reason why I enjoyed them wasn't because I had some sort of yearning to live in a world of magic. If Omega offered to transport me to Krynn or Middle Earth I'd refuse, even if it offered to send everyone I knew and loved with me. I know that modern technology is far better at satisfying our basic needs than magic, and find the idea of living in a medieval fantasy world to be only sli... (read more)

I remember having a response to either this article or one of its comments, but then a few hours happened before I was actually able to register (I physically can't solve capchas and managed to overlook a couple important details in how to use the add-on that I finally decided to install so I could register here. And I ramble without paying enough attention to the readability of my sentences, apparently.)

Anyway, I've gotten myself into a mindset in which I can only think of approaches to my current problems that work if something highly improbable were to ... (read more)

If nothing else, a lot of magic systems exist in extropic worlds, or at the very least, break conservation of energy. Plus, magic is often easier to use. Yeah, early D&D or Discworld is tough, but most systems these days are psychically channeled, in nature if not in name.

The technology and science in this world is awesome (and reality is too), but it's inaccessible. Most magic systems are not. Maybe its just laziness, but that's part of the appeal. Not having to spend thousands of years working out how to heal diseases, for instance.

The shift in... (read more)

I realize the oldest comment on this thread is from 3 years ago, but I still have something to say. The reason people like the idea of magic I think is that it makes us feel like it a part of us in a way that a lightbulb doesn't. Even if you invented the light bulb, it doesn't feel like it is a part of you in the same way as if you could make light with magic or had a natural ability to emit light. Being able to generate explosions as a part of you feels better than making a bomb and pressing a switch.

It is the same reason why people prefer swords and othe... (read more)

Such readers may believe that they lack some skills needed in this world (scientific or otherwise) and actually dream of being more skillful - but imagining yourself with a wand sending around magic (which you don't have to understand to use) is easier than imagining yourself smarter or more socialized or, you know, anything that could help in the real world.

Or wait - not anything. Imagine a world of late Middle Ages where some guy desperately wants to become a great warrior but is too weak to wield a sword or a longbow... and then you give him a cros... (read more)

I agree with the general idea, just adding on the question of why people would like to learn magic and not science.

I think the most basic difference in how people perceive becoming a wizard vs. becoming a scientist regards the scarcity and status hypothesis of this post.

Magic is usually limited, magic items are rare and magic can usually be done only by wizards. Most powers given than science can be bought at the store, no need to learn how gunpowder works to buy a gun. 

Also, when people think about power they think about personal power, like th... (read more)

I understand, it's hip to hate fringe theories. Justified. I'm hip, so I also hate them, but blaming it on magic isn't right, and we can't just ignore them, because it was how much progress was made historically. Regardless, this isn't magic, it's magic being used as an excuse. Magic is the dominion over the self, and dominating the self means doing good things, maybe even magical ones. The alchemists were magicians, illusionists are magicians, and scientists are magicians.

This gets me thinking so much that it might be worth making a top level post. In fact, there are a lot of reasons why such people want to enter the world of magic:

1. Often magical worlds need to be born with talent, and naturally they see themselves as such, in other words, this group also dreams of being born Einstein or someone else special. Or, yes, win the lottery.
2. Even if magic is available to everyone, unlike science, it gives personal strength through hard work. There is no Bayesian conspiracy in our world, and therefore scientists are in no way co

Hmm, not sure. In my case magic was always there for me when I need it. Maybe  that because I used to make decisions with magic 8 ball. But magic never let me down.

It seems that Ramanujan could see numbers as friends. But, evolutionarily, are we adapted to be emotionally attached to something that can be as complex as reality?