I would like to remind people how Big Bang works. It happens everywhere. Therefore a “big Bang in reverse” will also shrink into everywhere. Words like “escape” should be read in the sense of “plane shift” rather than “translate”. Warp drives and orion drives would be fundamentally useless for this task but since we are positing “unknown future tech” it does something relevant . These things don’t work that there would be a special priviledged superduper black hole somewhere and empty flat space outside of that.
The claim of “destruction of free will” in O1.1 seems to me also a standard confusion about free will which is incorrect. If we run you multiple times in identical circumstances and you always produce a particual choice then it makes sense to label that option “your choice”. If we run you multiple times and you produce different resolves then what you happen to present is not connected to who you are so it is not an expression of “you”.
Also “world outside the universe” is pretty much a contradiciton in terms. Sometimes in some ontologies “universe” descripes a kind if time line or a particular 4d slice (and there are 5d or other exotic things which these 4d slices can be a part of). But “universe” also has the meaning of “all that exists” like the Marvel Cinematic Universe contains multiple timelines, multiple planets and all kinds of stuff (rather than just a one linear collecition of celestial bodies). Even in the strawman “super duper blackhole + flat space” picture the “flat space” is not outside the universe (ie the universe is not just the matter content of the universe).
In outcome 2.1 it should be possible to kickstart a different intelligent race which could be immensely valuable. If humans can’t happen exactly, just (“just”) picking a lifesupporting planet and trying to crashland on that so that your bacteria will survive the crash could give life a couple of billions of years of headstart in the new configuration.
If we run you multiple times and you produce different resolves then what you happen to present is not connected to who you are so it is not an expression of “you”.
That itself is a standard confusion.
A torn decision is one in which your beliefs and desires are in conflict, and approximately balanced so.that there is no course of action which is is.overwhelmingly aligned with them. A form of indeterminism under which an internal coin toss occurs to settle a torn decision, has the property that you cannot make a choice that is fundamentally against your wishes. It might seem that a “random” choice would be one that had nothing to with your reasons and desires, since that is s plausible interpretation of “random”, but an internal coin toss is not random in that sense—the options chosen between come from you, are part of you
One can choose to use a mixed strategy. The “internal coin” need not be truly random. The point however is that an agent that takes an action is succesfully using their will. If you put in yourself into a situation knowing what you will choose that doesn’t take choice away from you. And the other way around losing knowledge of what you will choose doesn’t “grant” you free will.
But if it is, agency is not removed, despite your argument .
The point however is that an agent that takes an action is succesfully using their will. If you put in yourself into a situation knowing what you will choose
If there is only one thing you can choose, as a result of determinism, then you lack freedom of choice in the libertarian sense. Whether you know what you will choose is not very relevant.
That did make me hone my intuitions. I appear to have implicitly assumed that causing will have a single effect. But I would actually be somewhat fine with multiple mutually exclusive effects as long as there is “effection structure” (which I am less sure what it even means). But having the options open because “missing implementation” is not fine. If your plan is “2. ???? 3. PROFIT” it is not a plan at all.
The choice of what options are permissible is clearly an agentic choice. But I have a hard time swallowing that a truly random step could be a part of a things “character”. If rain conditions on whether I will take a umbrella with me, its the athmosphere which is a not-me that is deciding between those scenarios (I can only decide that I am going to sensibly monitor the rain). The coin flip if it is not pseudorandom I would be unsure but lean on that it is not part of the strategicing or decision process. Yet at the same time it feels like a bit of my body could have such flakey character, which could on principle be part of the cognitiive machinery. Feels like it needs to be noised and can’t make for a structural part for the actual function of it.
I would like to remind people how Big Bang works. It happens everywhere. Therefore a “big Bang in reverse” will also shrink into everywhere. Words like “escape” should be read in the sense of “plane shift” rather than “translate”. Warp drives and orion drives would be fundamentally useless for this task but since we are positing “unknown future tech” it does something relevant . These things don’t work that there would be a special priviledged superduper black hole somewhere and empty flat space outside of that.
The claim of “destruction of free will” in O1.1 seems to me also a standard confusion about free will which is incorrect. If we run you multiple times in identical circumstances and you always produce a particual choice then it makes sense to label that option “your choice”. If we run you multiple times and you produce different resolves then what you happen to present is not connected to who you are so it is not an expression of “you”.
Also “world outside the universe” is pretty much a contradiciton in terms. Sometimes in some ontologies “universe” descripes a kind if time line or a particular 4d slice (and there are 5d or other exotic things which these 4d slices can be a part of). But “universe” also has the meaning of “all that exists” like the Marvel Cinematic Universe contains multiple timelines, multiple planets and all kinds of stuff (rather than just a one linear collecition of celestial bodies). Even in the strawman “super duper blackhole + flat space” picture the “flat space” is not outside the universe (ie the universe is not just the matter content of the universe).
In outcome 2.1 it should be possible to kickstart a different intelligent race which could be immensely valuable. If humans can’t happen exactly, just (“just”) picking a lifesupporting planet and trying to crashland on that so that your bacteria will survive the crash could give life a couple of billions of years of headstart in the new configuration.
That itself is a standard confusion.
A torn decision is one in which your beliefs and desires are in conflict, and approximately balanced so.that there is no course of action which is is.overwhelmingly aligned with them. A form of indeterminism under which an internal coin toss occurs to settle a torn decision, has the property that you cannot make a choice that is fundamentally against your wishes. It might seem that a “random” choice would be one that had nothing to with your reasons and desires, since that is s plausible interpretation of “random”, but an internal coin toss is not random in that sense—the options chosen between come from you, are part of you
One can choose to use a mixed strategy. The “internal coin” need not be truly random. The point however is that an agent that takes an action is succesfully using their will. If you put in yourself into a situation knowing what you will choose that doesn’t take choice away from you. And the other way around losing knowledge of what you will choose doesn’t “grant” you free will.
But if it is, agency is not removed, despite your argument .
If there is only one thing you can choose, as a result of determinism, then you lack freedom of choice in the libertarian sense. Whether you know what you will choose is not very relevant.
That did make me hone my intuitions. I appear to have implicitly assumed that causing will have a single effect. But I would actually be somewhat fine with multiple mutually exclusive effects as long as there is “effection structure” (which I am less sure what it even means). But having the options open because “missing implementation” is not fine. If your plan is “2. ???? 3. PROFIT” it is not a plan at all.
The choice of what options are permissible is clearly an agentic choice. But I have a hard time swallowing that a truly random step could be a part of a things “character”. If rain conditions on whether I will take a umbrella with me, its the athmosphere which is a not-me that is deciding between those scenarios (I can only decide that I am going to sensibly monitor the rain). The coin flip if it is not pseudorandom I would be unsure but lean on that it is not part of the strategicing or decision process. Yet at the same time it feels like a bit of my body could have such flakey character, which could on principle be part of the cognitiive machinery. Feels like it needs to be noised and can’t make for a structural part for the actual function of it.