linktr.ee/alexbeyman
Alex Beyman
Karma: −18
Everybody Comes Back
Indeed, and the article makes this exact argument towards the end: “In the event that we’re in a simulation already, many of the barriers facing the scanning of an entire universe (or at least a solar system, accounting for miniscule external gravitational influences) are solved. That information already exists in the simulation back end.”
You might’ve finished reading before you replied
This exact argument is already presented late in the article: “In the event that we’re in a simulation already, many of the barriers facing the scanning of an entire universe (or at least a solar system, accounting for miniscule external gravitational influences) are solved. That information already exists in the simulation back end.”
You might’ve finished reading before you replied
No, it isn’t unnecessary as multiple potential methods of retrieving the necessary information exist, and I wanted to cover them when I felt it was appropriate. Are you behaving reasonably? Is it my responsibility to anticipate what you’re likely to assume about the contents of an article before you read it? Or could you have simply finished reading before responding? I intend no hostility, though I confess I do feel frustrated.
Because it ties in to the earlier point you mentioned about demand driving technological development. What is there more demand for than the return of departed loved ones? Simulationism was one of two means of retrieving the necessary information to reconstitute a person btw, though I have added a third, much more limited method elsewhere in these comments (mapping the atomic configuration of the still living).
>”You are talking about them in past tense as if they have already achieved their claimed capabilities. I have no doubt that practical mars vehicles and driverless cars will be developed eventually, but I am skeptical that the hard parts of those problems have already been solved.”
Given the larger point of the article is that technological resurrection is a physically possible, foreseeable development, when specifically any of this is achieved will be irrelevant to people living now, if we will indeed live again. I’m reminded of the old joke, “What do we want? Time travel! When do we want it? It’s irrelevant!”
These are good points. Can we agree a more accurate title would be “Futurists with STEM knowledge have a much better prediction track record than is generally attributed to futurists on the whole”? Though considerably longer and less eye catching.
UAPs seem to perform something superficially indistinguishable from antigravity btw, whatever they are. Depending of course on whether the US government’s increasingly official, open affirmation of this phenomenon persuades you of its authenticity. If there exists an alternate means to do the same kinds of things we wanted antigravity for in the first place, the impossibility of antigravity specifically seems like a moot point.
A variety of medications are available today for treating attention deficits.
The former is necessary to establish the credibility of the latter imo
Point taken re: formatting. But what you consider meandering, to me, is laying contextual groundwork to build the conclusion on. I cannot control for impatience.
Enjoyable, digestible writing style and thought provoking. Aligns pretty closely with some of my own ideas concerning technological resurrection.
And patience is yours?
>”Well, as you yourself outline in the article people have basically just accepted death. How much funding is currently going into curing aging? (Which seems to be a much lower hanging fruit currently than any kind of resurrection.) Much less than should be IMO.”
A good point. I’m not sure how or if this would change. My suspicion is that as the technology necessary to remake people gets closer to readiness, developed for other reasons, the public’s defeatism will diminish. They dare not hope for a second life unless it’s either incontrovertibly possible and soon to be realized, or they’re a religious fantasist for whom credibility is an unimportant attribute of beliefs.
>”The key word here is “if”.
A hypothetical the entire article is dedicated to supporting
>”If we will be resurrected later anyway, why care about anything at all right now?”
Because the resurrection cannot happen if we go extinct before the means is developed, very obviously. It requires the continued survival of humanity, and of civilization, to support continued technological development. I would say I am shocked you would ask such a question but this is not my first rodeo.
Rather than reason through ideas only far enough to identify potential problems and then stop, assuming they’re show-stoppers, please continue at least one or two further steps. Make some effort to first answer your own objections before posing them to me as if I didn’t think of them and as if they are impassable barriers. You needn’t assume others are correct in order to steelman their arguments.
>”Also taking this to its logical conclusion just seems nonsensical.”
If the reasoning goes A->B->C->D->E but you stopped at B because it seemed potentially problematic, then everything from B to E looks like an indefensible leap. This is not a problem with the reasoning, but of incomplete analysis by someone disinclined to take seriously ideas they did not personally conclude to.
Edit: It’s also possible I’m guilty of this in the event you were referring to far future resurrection of all intelligent species carried out by machines not originating from Earth
>”You might begin by arguing that the US military is generally trustworthy, wouldn’t ever release doctored footage to spread misinformation”
When the government denied UAPs, the response was “it’s not officially real, the authorities have not verified it”. Now the government says it is real, and the response has shifted to “you trust the authorities??”
>”Would you think a good title for that article would be “The US military is generally trustworthy”? I think that would be a bad title”
See above. It’s always lose/lose with goalpost movers. This does make me wonder where you stand on vaccines, though. Trust government on vaccines, but not UAPs? I am 3x vaccinated, FWIW
>”then you might review some examples of UAP reports, possible explanations for them, and why you find some more credible than others”
I pay taxes so that this government agency can do that for me, much as I also do not pave the roads myself.
>”Maybe that’s unfair? I don’t think I really endorse the principle that the only honest way to title an article that argues for a particular thesis is for the title to be a brief statement of that thesis. But I do think that that’s the default thing to do with the title, and that if you do something else there should probably be a specific good reason, and if the only reason is “I think people won’t take me seriously if they know my actual opinion going in” then I think that’s a bad reason.”
My reason is that I am hungry. I like to eat hot food and sleep indoors. Under capitalism, this requires money. This article was originally written for Medium.com, a monetized blogging platform. It did not occur to me when copying it here that the cultures of these two sites might differ in a way that would change the reception of my writing based on the title, as I am new here.
>”(Also, for what it’s worth, I don’t think the proposition that it may one day be possible to something-like-resurrect at least some of the dead is in fact one that would get you regarded as a crackpot around here, even though I am not at all convinced that you have made a good case for the particular version of that proposition your article argues for.)”
That’s fine, I came here to argue recreationally, agreement defeats that aim.
>”It is. An argument is only as strong as its weakest link.”
If the conclusion hinges upon that link, sure.
>”Reversing entropy and simulation absolutely are.”
You do not need to reverse entropy to remake a person. Otherwise we are reversing entropy every time we manufacture copies of something which has broken. Even the “whole universe scan” method does not actually wind back the clock, except in sim.
>”Well you suggest in the article that our simulators would resurrect us, am I missing something?”
Yes. If every intelligent species takes the attitude that “it’s not my problem, someone else will take care of it” then nobody does. We cannot know for sure how many intelligent, technologically capable species exist. In the absence of confirmation, the only way we can be sure that a technological means of resurrection will be developed is if we do it. If we’re not alone, nothing is lost except that we have reinvented the wheel.
>”The idea that we could recover past states of the universe in sufficient detail is by far the most suspicious claim, and it is central to the idea of bringing back past people, that’s why I was addressing that specifically.”
I agree actually and this is why I furnished two methods, although there’s a third method which can also remake people based on scans of the still living, it’s just considerably more limited than the other two. My central point being that physics permits such a technology, there exists demand for it, so it is reasonable to expect it will exist in some form. That is by itself remarkable enough, for people outside of LessWrong anyway.
Horror movies are quite a popular genre, despite depicting awful, bleak scenarios. Imagine if the only genre of film was romcom. Imagine if no sour or bitter foods existed and every restaurant sold only desserts. I am of the mind that there is much to appreciate about life as a human, even as there is also much to hate. I am not here only to be happy, as such a life would be banal and an incomplete representation of the human experience. Rollercoasters are more enjoyable than funiculars because they have both ups and downs.
>”the world is made of fields, not particles”
Is this the mainstream view? It’s the first time I’m hearing this. Thank you for the insights btw
Not to worry, I’m secure in my talents, as a tradpubbed author of ten years. If by this time I could not write well, I would choose a different pursuit. I appreciate your good intentions but my ego is uninjured and not in need of coddling. It is a hardened mass of scar tissue as a consequence of growing up autistic in a less sensitive time.
This article in fact was originally posted on a monetized platform, which is why it’s in that style you dislike. You certainly have a nose for it. I didn’t know to tailor it to this community’s preferences as I have only just begun posting here and as yet I’m unfamiliar with those preferences.
I will take your feedback into account. Failure is nothing but a lesson, and a typical outcome of any first attempt at something, in a new environment. Subsequent posts will be more refined, and tailored to this audience, as I get to know it better.
Thank you. Can you devise an organic way to work this information into the article while keeping it approachable to an audience of mostly laypersons, who will understand what particles are but not the importance of fields?
By styling I mean aesthetic flourish, which is largely irrelevant to aerodynamics. The point I’m making is that aesthetic styling isn’t predictable because it isn’t governed by the physics of rocketry, where the features necessary to its function are predictable.
I understand how the title gives that impression. But if you read the article, you see the stipulations are in fact very reasonable: That the predictions are made by someone with a STEM background, such that they understand what physics permits, and that we cannot know what the aesthetic styling or use cases will be.
>”It’s clear that this includes “science fiction authors have written about”, “movie-makers have made movies involving”, etc.) many things that have not happened and that we have no reason to think will ever happen”
This falls outside the first stipulation then. It isn’t sleight of hand or in any way unreasonable to stipulate that the one making the prediction should know what they’re talking about
>”(It might be that no measuments it’s physically possible for us to take give enough precision about their past state to do it.) You certainly haven’t established that it will ever be technologically feasible.”
If we are not spirits but a configuration of matter, and if we can assemble matter with precision, there is every reason to believe we could create people this way. What you’re disputing is whether we’ll have the ability to forensically retrieve the information necessary to recreate the specific people we might wish to.
I supplied two possible methods in this article, one of which assumes simulationism and the other instruments of detection and mapping not yet in existence. I would like to propose a third: Mapping someone’s atomic, or subatomic configuration while still living. Then they could not only be reconstituted as they were at the time of the scan, the scan itself could be back propagated in software to an earlier age if desired.
I put it to you that this makes it reasonable to expect some form of technological resurrection, and what’s in question is exactly how capable it will be. It may well be that I cannot persuade you, but I began posting here to be challenged anyway, not showered with agreement