I mean something like Christ set it up such that we’re more likely to have a positive singularity, though this is very disputable, and I’m mostly following that line of reasoning because meta-contrarianism is fun.
Maybe you should stop doing that, if it’s leading you to say things like “I mean something like Christ set it up such that we’re more likely to have a positive singularity”.
Unfortunately it might be a (subjective?) Bayesian decision theory question, in which case it will never be fit for Less Wrong.
Assuming that the other people you encounter inhabit the same reality as you — and I suspect you’ll be able to find something about that to object to, but you know what I mean :P — what is subjective about it? The fact that from a decision-theoretic perspective we may be in many universes at once doesn’t suggest that the distribution of your measure depends systematically on your beliefs about it (which is the only thing I can imagine this use of “subjective” meaning, bur correct me if I’m mistaken about that).
Maybe you should stop doing that, if it’s leading you to say things like “I mean something like Christ set it up such that we’re more likely to have a positive singularity”.
Why?
Assuming that the other people you encounter inhabit the same reality as you — and I suspect you’ll be able to find something about that to object to, but you know what I mean :P — what is subjective about it?
Existence is probably tied up with causal significance, and causal significance is tied up with individuals’ local utility functions along with this more global probability thing. But around singularities where lots of utility is up for grabs it might be that the local utility differences override the global similarities of how existence works. I haven’t thought about this carefully. Hence the question mark.
I did not downvote, not having read the comment previously but “existence is probably tied up with causal significance” sounds extremely dubious and in need of justification.
Maybe you should stop doing that, if it’s leading you to say things like “I mean something like Christ set it up such that we’re more likely to have a positive singularity”.
Assuming that the other people you encounter inhabit the same reality as you — and I suspect you’ll be able to find something about that to object to, but you know what I mean :P — what is subjective about it? The fact that from a decision-theoretic perspective we may be in many universes at once doesn’t suggest that the distribution of your measure depends systematically on your beliefs about it (which is the only thing I can imagine this use of “subjective” meaning, bur correct me if I’m mistaken about that).
Why?
Existence is probably tied up with causal significance, and causal significance is tied up with individuals’ local utility functions along with this more global probability thing. But around singularities where lots of utility is up for grabs it might be that the local utility differences override the global similarities of how existence works. I haven’t thought about this carefully. Hence the question mark.
Request for downvote explanation.
I did not downvote, not having read the comment previously but “existence is probably tied up with causal significance” sounds extremely dubious and in need of justification.
I upvoted, even though I didn’t fully grok your last paragraph, I sensed interesting meaning embedded in it. Care to elaborate?
They didn’t understand what you meant and mapped it as something else that was wrong. Also possible political downvote.