My own view is that (ignoring simulations for the time being) MWI ideas have no conflict with our usual ethical intuitions and reasonings. Yes, it is the case that when I choose between evil action A and good action B, there will be two branches of the universe - one in which I choose A and one in which I choose B. This will be the case regardless of which choice I make. But this does not make my choice morally insignificant, because I split too, along with the rest of the universe. The version of me that chose evil act A will have to live thereafter w... (Read more)(Click to expand thread. ⌘F to Expand All)Cmd/Ctrl F to expand all comments on this post

[anonymous]9y1

Yes, MWI ideas have no conflict with usual ethical intuitions. And they also help you make better sense of those intuitions. Counterfactuals really do exist, for example; they're not just some hypothetical that is in point of fact physically impossible.

1ata9y That's not how MWI works, unless human brains have a quantum randomness source that they use to make decisions (which does not appear to be the case).
1Perplexed9y Is it wrong to create a simulation and then torture the inhabitants? Well, that is an ethical question, whereas this is a meta-ethical analysis. But the meta-ethical answer to that ethical question is that if you torture simulated beings, then you must live with the consequences of that. I should add that it is impossible to erase your sin by deciding to terminate the simulation, so as to "euthanize" the victims of your torture. Because there is always a branch where you don't so decide, and the victims of your torture live on.

Open Thread, August 2010

by NancyLebovitz 9y1st Aug 2010706 comments

4


This thread is for the discussion of Less Wrong topics that have not appeared in recent posts. If a discussion gets unwieldy, celebrate by turning it into a top-level post.