Using quantum suicide as a reason to ignore logical implications is blatantly fallacious.
It’s just an example. I’ll now add to the post what I thought was already implicitly clear, if quantum suicide would make sense then I wouldn’t do it. You know very well that mentioning the example that I really mean to talk about is forbidden around here.
It’s just not an example of the phenomenon you are trying to illustrate at all! This should seem like an important consideration—because maintaining it as an example is undermining your post.
I’ll now add to the post what I thought was already implicitly clear, if quantum suicide would make sense then I wouldn’t do it.
It was clear, and clearly fallacious. “All X are False. For example, Y is false. If Y was an X then it would be false.” The only thing being exemplified is the phenomenon of the people who think logical conclusions being bad just being wrong about what logical conclusions are and the logical conclusions are fine.
Quantum suicide might not increase your expected utility and is therefore the wrong choice for an expected utility maximizer. Yet quantum suicide is being taken seriously by some people and it is a logical implication of an interpretation of quantum mechanics. That I wouldn’t suggest to follow through on it even given that it would maximize your expected utility seems to be a good example to highlight what I wanted to argue without talking about the forbidden topic: Discount implied utility of implications of logical implications of interpretations of data (but don’t ignore it).
Yet quantum suicide is being taken seriously by some people and it is a logical implication of an interpretation of quantum mechanics.
You are wrong about the logical implications.
That I wouldn’t suggest to follow through on it even given that it would maximize your expected utility seems to be a good example to highlight what I wanted to argue without talking about the forbidden topic:
I actually agree that it is a representative example of your thesis as you have advocated it in your post. The aforementioned observations that it is obviously fallacious and relies on being confused about what logical implications are and mean stand.
The aforementioned observations that it is obviously fallacious and relies on being confused about what logical implications are and mean stand.
wedrifid_level_obvious maybe but not universally obvious. Or do you accuse me of acting deliberately stupid?
What I mean by logical implications are mechanic inferences made from premises that were previously established to be reasonable inferences given the available evidence.
For example the established premises that gunshots to the head are often deadly and that those who die often leave behind mourning friends and family. You could continue to draw further inferences from those premises and establish the expected disutility of shooting someone in the head. But where do you draw the line here?
The impact of any decision does propagate causal ripples that may or may not be amplified. Just like the influence of the starship you launched will continue even if you can no longer interact with it.
if quantum suicide would make sense then I wouldn’t do it
Your example sounds good for a second because it’s “stickin’ it to the man”—standing on your principles against the absurd forces of quantum suicide.
But once you pause and work within the hypothetical (something humans are notoriously bad at), you’re saying that you’d ignore a truth on principle just because it’s weird. At that point we need to start breaking out the cautionary tales.
...you’re saying that you’d ignore a truth on principle just because it’s weird.
I am saying that my trust in one interpretation of quantum mechanics isn’t enough. It might be reasonable to accept MWI, without additional empirical evidence, as the interpretation that makes the most sense given the evidence. But quantum suicide would be something that is based on that inference as a logical implication, which is justified by P(Y|X) ≈ 1, then P(X∧Y) ≈ P(X). And what I am saying is that I believe that we should draw a line somewhere when it comes to such logical implications. Because, even if they don’t have to pay rent in future anticipations, the actions that such implications demand might be solely justified by the expected utility of the logical implications while our confidence is only as strong as our trust in the last step that required actual evidence.
what I am saying is that I believe that we should draw a line somewhere when it comes to such logical implications
I’m all for drawing lines when we have evidence against things, like we do for the proposition that suicide is harmless. But if you want to make up some hypothetical world where it “makes sense,” that suicide is harmless, then presumably we wouldn’t have that balance of evidence, since one generally includes the evidence when judging what makes sense.
So if you’re not judging on the evidence in this hypothetical world, you’re judging based on the aesthetic properties of the proposition, basically. It’s just not a good way to do things, because a non-human spontaneously giving birth to the first human is quite un-aesthetic, don’t you think?
One reason why it makes sense that we should always reject the harmlessness of suicide may be that humans are bad at hypotheticals. Propositions that we associate with low probability will drag that association with them into the darndest of places.
It’s just an example. I’ll now add to the post what I thought was already implicitly clear, if quantum suicide would make sense then I wouldn’t do it. You know very well that mentioning the example that I really mean to talk about is forbidden around here.
It’s just not an example of the phenomenon you are trying to illustrate at all! This should seem like an important consideration—because maintaining it as an example is undermining your post.
It was clear, and clearly fallacious. “All X are False. For example, Y is false. If Y was an X then it would be false.” The only thing being exemplified is the phenomenon of the people who think logical conclusions being bad just being wrong about what logical conclusions are and the logical conclusions are fine.
Quantum suicide might not increase your expected utility and is therefore the wrong choice for an expected utility maximizer. Yet quantum suicide is being taken seriously by some people and it is a logical implication of an interpretation of quantum mechanics. That I wouldn’t suggest to follow through on it even given that it would maximize your expected utility seems to be a good example to highlight what I wanted to argue without talking about the forbidden topic: Discount implied utility of implications of logical implications of interpretations of data (but don’t ignore it).
You are wrong about the logical implications.
I actually agree that it is a representative example of your thesis as you have advocated it in your post. The aforementioned observations that it is obviously fallacious and relies on being confused about what logical implications are and mean stand.
wedrifid_level_obvious maybe but not universally obvious. Or do you accuse me of acting deliberately stupid?
What I mean by logical implications are mechanic inferences made from premises that were previously established to be reasonable inferences given the available evidence.
For example the established premises that gunshots to the head are often deadly and that those who die often leave behind mourning friends and family. You could continue to draw further inferences from those premises and establish the expected disutility of shooting someone in the head. But where do you draw the line here?
The impact of any decision does propagate causal ripples that may or may not be amplified. Just like the influence of the starship you launched will continue even if you can no longer interact with it.
Your example sounds good for a second because it’s “stickin’ it to the man”—standing on your principles against the absurd forces of quantum suicide.
But once you pause and work within the hypothetical (something humans are notoriously bad at), you’re saying that you’d ignore a truth on principle just because it’s weird. At that point we need to start breaking out the cautionary tales.
I am saying that my trust in one interpretation of quantum mechanics isn’t enough. It might be reasonable to accept MWI, without additional empirical evidence, as the interpretation that makes the most sense given the evidence. But quantum suicide would be something that is based on that inference as a logical implication, which is justified by P(Y|X) ≈ 1, then P(X∧Y) ≈ P(X). And what I am saying is that I believe that we should draw a line somewhere when it comes to such logical implications. Because, even if they don’t have to pay rent in future anticipations, the actions that such implications demand might be solely justified by the expected utility of the logical implications while our confidence is only as strong as our trust in the last step that required actual evidence.
I’m all for drawing lines when we have evidence against things, like we do for the proposition that suicide is harmless. But if you want to make up some hypothetical world where it “makes sense,” that suicide is harmless, then presumably we wouldn’t have that balance of evidence, since one generally includes the evidence when judging what makes sense.
So if you’re not judging on the evidence in this hypothetical world, you’re judging based on the aesthetic properties of the proposition, basically. It’s just not a good way to do things, because a non-human spontaneously giving birth to the first human is quite un-aesthetic, don’t you think?
One reason why it makes sense that we should always reject the harmlessness of suicide may be that humans are bad at hypotheticals. Propositions that we associate with low probability will drag that association with them into the darndest of places.
I can keep a secret and I’m interested in the concept of and theory behind quantum suicide. Can you PM me with an explanation of what you mean?
ETA: if this is about the Roko thing, I’ve read that but I don’t see how it relates.