That’s a valid point. Still I think four would still be the most likely and since the payoff is significantly bigger it’s still worth it to choose just B.
solomon alon
Karma: −7
Why is multi worlds not a good explanation for abiogenesis
It seems weird that given our laws of nature it would be more probable that boltzmann brains would form because boltzmann brains are more complicated than rna as far as I could tell
I thought the whole problem with boltzmann brains was in the fine tuning argument and the multiverse
Except my intuition is that the Roman’s managed to evade mathlusian living conditions.
Partial evidence: slavery an institution makes very little sense at the mathlusian boundary. Why pay for a slave when human labor costs the amount of food that it covers. (That’s the price of human labor in a mathlusian world)
Weirdly enough I dream tons about my phone and laptop. It’s usually how I know if I fell asleep or not(while napping during the day). Do I remember looking at my phone or not.
Evolution will eventually bring fertility back up to normal. It’s inevitable. I don’t know how long it will take. But it will happen. And so will exponential growth.
That’s a interesting point.
I started reading the FDT paper and it seems to make a lot more sense than TDT. And most importantly does not fail like TDT did in regards to roko’s basilisk.
I agree with you, I just was trying to emphasize that if your the real you your decision doesn’t change anything. At most it can do is if the simulation is extremely accurate is it can reveal what was already chosen since you know that you will make the same decision as you previously made in the simulation. The big difference between me and timeless decision theory is that I contend that the only reason to choose just box B is because you might be in the simulation. This completely gets rid of ridiculous problems like roko’s basilisk. Since we are not currently simulating a AI therefore a future AI cannot affect us. If the AI had the suspicion that it was in a simulation then it might have a incentive to torture people but given that it has no reason to think that, torture is a waste of time and effort.
while i have not read the link you sent and I plan on
They all seem to be referring to the fine tuning argument vs abiogenesis
thanks
that’s what i thought but I was wondering why this is not used as a counter to theistic proof from abiogenesis
Could you also link me to a good explanation of the odds of boltzmann brains
Thank you
thanks for the reply
Can you please link me to these cosmologists
From my understanding it’s incredibly unlikely. There are roughly two possibilities.
-
This a false memory implanted by her therapist.
-
She always had the memory but only realized what it was later or only decided to act on it later.
Note often time children don’t process sexual assault as an incredibly traumatic until years later. either because a therapist brings a memory to the forefront or something happens to bring the memory to the forefront or even just learning about what sex is can cuase the memoru to be traumatic.
-
while i can’t actually understand what your saying because I don’t understand physics well enough. As far as I know its not controversial to use the multi world model in the less wrong forums and that most people I respect use it fully. Is what your writing relevant to my question or to the entire lesswrong that believe that the many worlds explanation is correct
Ok so now make a prediction. What kind of data do you expect to see in clinical studies?
For example do you expect RCT’s involving potassium chloride to cause weight loss? Do they actually cause weight loss?