The thought of I—and yes, since there are no originals or copies, the very I writing this—having a guaranteed certainty of ending up doing that causes me so much anguish that I can’t help but thinking that if true, humanity should be destroyed in order to minimize the amount of branches where people end up in such situations. I find little comfort in the prospect of the “betrayal branches” being vanishingly few in frequency—in absolute numbers, their amount is still unimaginably large, and more are born every moment.
To paraphrase:
Statistically, it is inevitable that someone, somewhere, will suffer. Therefore, we should destroy the world.
Eli’s posts, when discussing rationality and communication, tend to focus on failures to communicate information. I find that disagreements that I have with “normal people” are sometimes because they have some underlying bizarre value function, such as Kaj’s valuation (a common one in Western culture since about 1970) that Utility(good things happening in 99.9999% of worlds—bad things happening in 0.0001% of worlds) < 0. I don’t know how to resolve such differences rationally.
Statistically, it is inevitable that someone, somewhere, will suffer. Therefore, we should destroy the world.
Eli’s posts, when discussing rationality and communication, tend to focus on failures to communicate information. I find that disagreements that I have with “normal people” are sometimes because they have some underlying bizarre value function, such as Kaj’s valuation (a common one in Western culture since about 1970) that Utility(good things happening in 99.9999% of worlds—bad things happening in 0.0001% of worlds) < 0. I don’t know how to resolve such differences rationally.