“Whatever is stopping interference patterns, it looks like detectors, not consciousness.”
That is not the case, as shows delayed quantum eraser experiments. Detector does not stop interference if detected information is deleted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser
If the universe was s.t. it is impossible to compute the trajectory of a tennis ball without string theory, we might have never discovered any physics.
Makes one wonder, what things we have not discovered, because they are in a such way?
What if both clone and original are told which one they are right after cloning? Then probability of being told that you are original twice is still 1⁄4.
Assume this real life scenario:
100 refugees are met by the king of host country, who says, only 1 of you will become our citizen and other 99 will be slaves. The procedure of selecting the citizen is as follows: we choose 2 of you randomly, then coin is tossed—the looser becomes slave and the winner goes for second round against another fellow randomly selected from remaining 98 and so on. The one who wins the last coin toss becomes citizen.
In this setting if you are selected 1st then you have close to 0 chance to become citizen, as if you are selected last you have 50%. The game is unfair for 1st guys being selected same way as it is unfair for the original in cloning scenario.
The one who has student loan to pay is less likely to quit job.
Although I do find this indeed an interesting parable, yet I fail to see any practical implications of this insight. Perhaps you could elaborate more on if there are any?
My suggestion is to show up-votes and down-votes separately. Naturally the post that gets no votes at all and post that gets 50 downvotes and 50 upvotes are of different significance and that should be visible.
This hypothesis does not explain why people tend to fall in love with opposite sex, while simulating brains more similar to your own should be easier.
No.
To be honest, I like all of your new definitions better that conventional ones.
Exactly that.
Well the only evidence I have in favor this theory about high IQ is anthropics itself. And it should not be taken as very strong evidence. But perhaps I could make a bit stronger case, if we assume version of anthropics, where only thinking about anthropics counts as observer moments. Then one would have to have at least as high IQ as it is required to understand anthropics in order to think about them.
Would it make sense to outlaw talking about doomsday argument?
And then I might respond by slicing into the definition of observer, creating “half-observers”, and moving smoothly between observer and non-observer…
Do you have this written down somewhere in more detail? It seems that for this to work one needs to assume the gradual appearance of consciousness, something like rock<beetle<mouse<ape<human. Will this work if one assumes consciousness to be binary, that it either is or it isn’t?
So what you are saying, is, before one knows his birth rank, one should assume infinite universe? This does actually corresponds to evidence about universe size, but not about human population size.
Lets say you do not know your birth rank at first. Then someone asks you to guess whether the universe is around 200 billion or some very large number. Without any additional data you should estimate 50% for either one. Then you get to know that your birth rank is around 100 billion. Do you not then update, that smaller universe have bigger than 50% chance estimated previously?
It’s a GET request
There is a third alternative: being true about your preferences, but realizing you are not in power to do anything about it.
I.e. I prefer to win lottery, but there is nothing reasonable I can do to achieve that, so I drop the participating in lottery altogether. From the outside it might look like I have revealed that I do not want to win a lottery since I do not even buy the ticket. Caring about environment might fall into this category as well.
What difference does memories make if you are already been told whether you are clone or original? I fail to understand this reasoning.
Another similar scenario:
Lets say laws are such that after cloning, both original and clone splits all the money that original has. Now first clone gets 50% of all wealth, second clone gets 25% and so on, while original is left with next to zero after 100 splits. That is same unfairness as in original problem, just instead of probability of having all the money you get the corresponding fraction of the money. There is no way for you to remain with 1% of your money if you are the one who keeps getting split.
I just came up with this name for the thing I think I am seeing here—it’s artificial morality. It is when you feel some things are moral and some are not, then you come up with a theory on why some things are moral and others are not, then you apply that theory to come up with other things that
shouldfeel moral/immoral and then you try to impose theseshouldfeelings to others even though there might not be a single person on earth who actaully feels that.