Tensor White

Sorted by New

# Wiki Contributions

To phrase it better: You find yourself in room N, how many total rooms are there?

I know UDASSA accounts for the description length of the room address, but remember that given a number of rooms, each room will have the same description length. If there are 64 rooms, then room 1 will have address "000000" and not simply "0" or "1".

This way if you find yourself in a room, without knowing how many total rooms there are, and only knowing your room number, then you write it out in binary and take 2 to the bit-length of your room's address. For ex, you find yourself in room number "100111", 6 bits. So with 50% chance, there will be 64 rooms in total. Then you add an extra bit with 50% of the remaining measure (25%), 128 rooms, and repeat. If the payout doesn't scale with the number of rooms, then 64 rooms would be the most profitable bet. It's easy to test this either irl, or with a python script.

python script: https://pastebin.com/b41Sa6s6

After doing so, I got unexpected results: given your room number, the most likely number of total rooms is a number whose description length is one-bit longer than the description length of your room. Weird.

You should take into account that, assuming material-onlyism, it is far easier for anthropic probability pumps to target neurons than to target bigger structures like LHC copper wires. A few neurons is sufficient to permanently change the world timeline from LHC to non-LHC. Whereas it would take change after change of copper wires or pipes etc to maintain the non-LHC timeline.

Conversely, if you maintain the LHC targeting mechanic over the neuron targeting mechanic, you necessarily have to bite either of whe following bullets, non-materialism (free will is immune to anthropic probability pumping), or that it takes more "probability juice" to target neurons than the LHC itself (ie, the locating difficulty of neurons outweighs the magnitude difficulty of the LHC).

For me, the timelines where I am immortal are where I am supported by God.

I find it interesting that we're approaching a kind of singularity-singularity. Every genre of futurist projections coinciding around the year 2,030AD.

Examples of coinciding eschatalogical genres:

The 2,000-year anniversary of the Resurrection.

Population Singularity

[Anthropic (Measure) Singularity](Brandon Carter, can't find link now)

[Immortality](Ray Kurzweil)

[AI](Ray Kurzweil)

The Great Reset

...

and so on.

Parity-flip robustness.

Suppose an exact copy of you appeared in front of you. Would you successfully cooperate with him? (Imagine a portal 2 like situation, or a prisoners' dilemma.) It's a pretty trivial accomplishment; all you'd have to do is pick a leader and pre-commit to following your other's orders if you lost the leadership. Since anything you'd do in your other's situation is exactly what your copy will end up doing.

Now let's bump up the difficulty to rather than an exact copy presented to you, he was an exact copy of you but with one parameter flipped to its opposite value. For example, the tendency to maintain eye contact. If you maintain eye contact 100% of the time, then your copy will do so 0% of the time. If you do so 60% of the time, your copy 40% of the time. Etc.

Under this constraint, would you two still successfully cooperate and escape yours' predicament? How many parity flips would you be able to cooperate through? Which parity flips are hard? For example, trust: if you trust a team member 50% of the time, then your copy will trust you only a mere 50% of the time!

I'll leave it with this: "So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth." -Revelation 3:16

As a Christian, I'm not surprised you notice such a phenomenon. Meditation opens you up spiritually to external influence. Not just epistemically, but ontologically. Meditation gives external things influence over yourself to the framework level. This is why Christians meditate with the most powerful spirit (Holy Spirit) so that we don't run into issues such as incorrect "programming" or "misalignment" or "over-fitting". The complete form of meditation is commonly called prayer to differentiate it from incomplete forms of meditation.