Since I’ve read of Newcomb’s paradox on the sequences on less wrong, I’ve always thought there is something fundamentally wrong about timeless decision theory. I would end up coming up with an alternate explanation that seemed correct to me. I then searched it on Wikipedia and found that what I...
This might have already been said in inadequate equilibria however it was definitely not clear enough for me to understand it from their so it's not plagiarism. The outside asks, what evidence do you have that you are right and the other person is wrong. The fact that you think...
I'm not a expert in the multi world theory. So this question could very well be extremely stupid. However, given the assumption that there are nearly infinite amount of worlds that are slightly different than each other, nearly every possible event would happen. This includes the formation of life. Now...
From my understanding it’s incredibly unlikely. There are roughly two possibilities.
This a false memory implanted by her therapist.
She always had the memory but only realized what it was later or only decided to act on it later.
Note often time children don’t process sexual assault as an incredibly traumatic until years later. either because a therapist brings a memory to the forefront or something happens to bring the memory to the forefront or even just learning about what sex is can cuase the memoru to be traumatic.
Ok so now make a prediction. What kind of data do you expect to see in clinical studies?
For example do you expect RCT’s involving potassium chloride to cause weight loss? Do they actually cause weight loss?
Except my intuition is that the Roman’s managed to evade mathlusian living conditions.
Partial evidence: slavery an institution makes very little sense at the mathlusian boundary. Why pay for a slave when human labor costs the amount of food that it covers. (That’s the price of human labor in a mathlusian world)
Weirdly enough I dream tons about my phone and laptop. It’s usually how I know if I fell asleep or not(while napping during the day). Do I remember looking at my phone or not.
That's a interesting point.
That's a valid point. Still I think four would still be the most likely and since the payoff is significantly bigger it's still worth it to choose just B.
I started reading the FDT paper and it seems to make a lot more sense than TDT. And most importantly does not fail like TDT did in regards to roko's basilisk.
I agree with you, I just was trying to emphasize that if your the real you your decision doesn't change anything. At most it can do is if the simulation is extremely accurate is it can reveal what was already chosen since you know that you will make the same decision as you previously made in the simulation. The big difference between me and timeless decision theory is that I contend that the only reason to choose just box B is because you might be in the simulation. This completely gets rid of ridiculous problems like roko's basilisk. Since we are not currently simulating a AI therefore a future AI cannot affect us. If the AI had the suspicion that it was in a simulation then it might have a incentive to torture people but given that it has no reason to think that, torture is a waste of time and effort.
Since I’ve read of Newcomb’s paradox on the sequences on less wrong, I’ve always thought there is something fundamentally wrong about timeless decision theory. I would end up coming up with an alternate explanation that seemed correct to me. I then searched it on Wikipedia and found that what I said was already said of course. But I’m still curios what the community thinks on the topic.
Newcomb’s paradox according to Wikipedia is as follows.
There is an infallible predictor, a player, and two boxes designated A and B. The player is given a choice between taking only box B, or taking both boxes A and B. The player knows the following:[4]
This might have already been said in inadequate equilibria however it was definitely not clear enough for me to understand it from their so it's not plagiarism. The outside asks, what evidence do you have that you are right and the other person is wrong. The fact that you think your right does not constitute evidence because he also thinks he's right.
My counter is that their are different levels of sureness about being correct. I can be pretty sure or absolutely certain. And the more sure I am of something the more likely it is to be true. So if I knew that I was more sure than the other person I... (read 308 more words →)
while i can't actually understand what your saying because I don't understand physics well enough. As far as I know its not controversial to use the multi world model in the less wrong forums and that most people I respect use it fully. Is what your writing relevant to my question or to the entire lesswrong that believe that the many worlds explanation is correct
I'm not a expert in the multi world theory. So this question could very well be extremely stupid. However, given the assumption that there are nearly infinite amount of worlds that are slightly different than each other, nearly every possible event would happen. This includes the formation of life. Now what are the odds that we would be witnessing that world, as far as I can tell 100 percent.
Now I'm not clear exactly how often quantum events lead to a slightly different world but even at the rate of 1 quantum event a year in the entire universe. should lead to a near infinite explosion of completely different universes.
Now I'm not claiming... (read more)
Evolution will eventually bring fertility back up to normal. It’s inevitable. I don’t know how long it will take. But it will happen. And so will exponential growth.