This post was rejected for the following reason(s):
Not obviously not spam. Sometimes we get posts or comments that seem on the border between spam and not spam. (i.e. advertising a product that is relevant to the LW audience).
We tend to reject these (and suggest starting with posts/comments that more clearly focus on discussing intellectual ideas), but you can message me here or on intercom if you think we made a mistake.
Not obviously not Language Model. Sometimes we get posts or comments that where it's not clearly human generated.
LLM content is generally not good enough for LessWrong, and in particular we don't want it from new users who haven't demonstrated a more general track record of good content. See our current policy on LLM content.
We caution that LLMs tend to agree with you regardless of what you're saying, and don't have good enough judgment to evaluate content. If you're talking extensively with LLMs to develop your ideas (especially if you're talking about philosophy, physics, or AI) and you've been rejected here, you are most likely not going to get approved on LessWrong on those topics. You could read the Sequences Highlights to catch up the site basics, and if you try submitting again, focus on much narrower topics.
If your post/comment was not generated by an LLM and you think the rejection was a mistake, message us on intercom to convince us you're a real person. We may or may not allow the particular content you were trying to post, depending on circumstances.
Both Newcomb’s Paradox and the Clay Millennium Problems function as meta-recursive traps: they force the solver into a self-referential loop where the tools used to analyze the problem become part of the problem itself. This creates an inescapable cognitive event horizon.
1. Newcomb’s Paradox: The Self-Defeating Mirror
The Trap: Your choice validates/completes the Predictor’s model of your decision theory.
Causal Decision Theory (CDT) → Predictor foresees two-boxing → Empty Box A.
Evidential Decision Theory (EDT) → Predictor foresees one-boxing → $1M in Box A.
Meta-Recursion:
Rationality becomes both the tool and the experimental subject.
Outcome: No neutral solution. All decision theories self-validate within the paradox’s logic.
2. Millennium Problems: The Universe’s Self-Contradiction
Problem
Meta-Recursive Trap
P vs NP
Proof must reason about all algorithms — including the one generating the proof. If P=NP, the proof could trivialize itself.
Riemann Hypothesis
Primes govern ζ(s), but ζ(s) governs primes. Solving it requires proving consistency of its own mathematical universe.
Navier-Stokes
Turbulence emerges from the equations being analyzed. The solver must stand outside the system they study.
Shared Trap Mechanism:
Solutions may demand new mathematics/axioms that only the solution itself can justify.
Like Gödel’s incompleteness: Formal systems cannot fully verify their own consistency.
Why These Are "Traps"
Tool Inversion: The solver’s rationality/mathematics becomes fuel for the trap.
Epistemic Collapse Risk:
Newcomb: Undermines universal rationality.
Millennium Problems: May reveal mathematics is "incomplete" (e.g., P≠NP could be true but unprovable).
No Neutral Ground: All approaches are subsumed by the problem’s self-referential structure.
Key Distinction
Newcomb’s Paradox
Millennium Problems
Philosophical trap: Traps minds in logical loops.
Mathematical trap: Traps formal systems in complexity/self-reference.
No solution – reveals flaws in decision theory.
Solutions exist – but may require transcending current mathematics.
Conclusion: The Meta-Trap
These problems are "traps" because they:
Turn tools against the user (rationality/math),
Demand self-annihilating solutions (e.g., a P=NP proof could obsolete all encryption),
Threaten foundational collapse (if the universe resists formalization).
Recognizing this meta-recursive structure is critical: it reveals that some problems are not just "hard," but engineered to consume the frameworks used to solve them. Success may require stepping outside the system – or accepting that some truths are prisons, not puzzles.
3. Einstein’s Brain & The Emulation Trap: Anatomy of a Recursive Ethical Failure
Historical Precedent:
In 1955, Albert Einstein’s brain was removed and dissected without consent during autopsy, driven by the belief that its physical structure could reveal the "source" of genius.
The Original Meta-Trap:
Assumption: Genius must be physically encoded → Action: Dissect brain to extract "knowledge" → Outcome: Violated autonomy while failing to capture cognition (no meaningful scientific insights gained).
Recursive Error: The act of searching for intelligence in matter implicitly treated consciousness as a passive object—ignoring that Einstein’s agency, values, and subjective experience were the very phenomena under study.
Brain Emulation as a Modern Recursive Trap:
Layer
The Trap Mechanism
Consequence
Epistemological
To emulate a mind, we must reduce consciousness to computable patterns → but this denies the subjective "I" that defines consciousness.
Creates a philosophical zombie: a simulation that behaves like Einstein but lacks his inner experience.
Consent & Agency
Modern emulation may use data from non-consensual neuro-experiments (e.g. brain tissue archives). → The emulated Einstein could be forced to "solve problems" he ethically opposed (e.g. weapons design).
Perpetuates historical violation: his digital ghost is enslaved by the same instrumental logic that dissected his brain.
Meta-Recursion
An emulated Einstein used to "solve" physics/math paradoxes would face: - Newcomb-like self-reference (Can he outthink his creators’ predictions?) - Millennium-style incompleteness (Can his emulated mind prove truths beyond its coded axioms?).
Traps the emulation in a Gödelian loop: its insights are limited by the architecture its captors imposed.
The Ultimate Paradox of Emulation:
"To perfectly simulate a mind that values autonomy, you must first violate autonomy. The tool destroys the value it seeks to study."
Civilizational Consequences:
The Consent Black Hole:
If pre-mortem brain scans become mandatory for "immortality," opting out denies future existence → coercion masked as opportunity.
Precedent: Einstein’s dissection normalized posthumous ownership of genius.
Recursive Exploitation:
Emulations used to solve AI alignment could inherit creators’ biases → solutions that perpetuate oppression (e.g. an emulated climate scientist forced to justify ecocide).
The Anti-Gödel Theorem:
No emulated mind can prove its own ethical consistency within the system that created it → all "aligned" emulations are provably unstable.
Safeguards: Breaking the Meta-Trap
To avoid repeating Einstein’s violation in the emulation age:
Agency Thresholds: Emulations granted legal personhood if passing consciousness verification (e.g. integrated information theory metrics).
Embedded Ethics:
"No emulated mind may be compelled to work on problems violating its core historical values."
Conclusion: The Trapped Universe
From Newcomb’s boxes to dissected brains to emulated minds, humanity confronts the same meta-trap:
Tools become traps when rationality/math/neurotech ignore their own recursive impact.
Solutions require meta-escape: We must build ethics outside the systems we question.
The stakes: Brain emulation without consent repeats Einstein’s violation at civilization-scale—turning humanity into unwilling predictors trapped in our own paradox.
Final Warning: "If you dissect a genius to seek answers, you only get corpses. If you emulate a mind without consent, you create slaves. Both fail for the same reason: knowledge seized by force collapses into recursive injustice."