No.6783
Just found this and had to share it. Has anyone here ever felt similarly?
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6784
I've never felt that way. I think Muflax is/was too smart and spiritually accomplished for his own good.
"How happy is the moron / he doesn't give a damn. / I wish I was a moron / my god! perhaps I am!"
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6785
Bernard Williams said it earlier, and better.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6786
>>6783
Yeah.
You just kinda have to get over it.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6787
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6788
>>6783
Is this Sandifer? What a dumb piece of shit
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6789
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6790
Incidentally, does anyone know what happened to muflax? It's been several years since he deleted, it would be interesting to know what he has been up to since.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6791
>>6785
eh so did rick and morty
what is with people and tying their sense of personal wellbeing to ideas about physics anyway?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6792
>>6790
Do we know if muflax was a he? They always played it coy.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6793
>>6792
knowing the stats of the community, probably a xe TBQH
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6794
David Deutsch, one of the biggest current advocates of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics among modern physicists, disagrees that it makes choices meaningless, see his comment at http://www.kurzweilai.net/taming-the-multiverse –
>What would it mean for you and me to know there are inconceivably many yous and mes living out all possible histories? Surely, there is no point in making any choices for the better if all possible outcomes happen? We might as well stay in bed or commit suicide.
>Deutsch does not agree. In fact, he thinks it could make real choice possible. In classical physics, he says, there is no such thing as “if”; the future is determined absolutely by the past. So there can be no free will. In the multiverse, however, there are alternatives; the quantum possibilities really happen. Free will might have a sensible definition, Deutsch thinks, because the alternatives don’t have to occur within equally large slices of the multiverse. “By making good choices, doing the right thing, we thicken the stack of universes in which versions of us live reasonable lives,” he says. “When you succeed, all the copies of you who made the same decision succeed too. What you do for the better increases the portion of the multiverse where good things happen.”
The key, I guess, is to have some notion of an objective probability function on all the possible worlds. Even if you go beyond the specifically quantum notion of the multiverse and into something broader like Tegmark's notion of all mathematically possible worlds existing (discussed at http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html ), there's no obvious reason why there couldn't be a such a function, maybe based on computational complexity (like the 'universal prior' suggested at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9904050 )
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6795
figuring out exactly what a "world" is supposed to be in many worlds is not at all obvious– i guess it is a point in the classical configuration space of the universe at which the wave-function of the system is nonzero? but if that is what it is, i don't see why making a moral choice in this world would necessarily entail raising (even if infinitesimally) the total amount of good in the multiverse. perhaps instead the connection between conscious experience and world-splitting is solely a matter of you deciding which branch (of predetermined weight) you choose to follow rather than making the individual decision for what happens in "this world" (last phrase in quotes because it is not really well defined in most discussions of many worlds)
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6796
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12873
>Morally, all future instances of all people are in the same reference class. (Unless you want to endorse extreme anti-universalism. Not that I’d mind, but it’s not very popular these days.) See how evil your own actions are, shamelessly favoring a very narrow class of people? I honestly don’t know if should be more troubled by the insanity of this view, or the implied sociopathy of virtually all actions once you take it seriously.
Rawls is bad for you. I understand this sounds crude next to the analysis in Muflax's post, but it should be pointed out. Rawls is also bad philosophy, but that is a separate point. It should also be pointed out that their anxiety problems predated and were not caused by rationality, although it appears that participating in the community exacerbated them.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12875
>>6794
>>6796
How many rationalists subscribe to MW interpretation?
How tightly do they generally hold onto this model?
It seems dogmatic and impulsive for people to so readily jump at it and say "This! This is 100% True"
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12876
If many worlds is true, doesn't that mean that future people are exponentially more important morally than present people because the number of worlds increases exponentially?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.12932
>>12876
I think that, despite the name, "many worlds interpretation" doesn't literally mean that there is a discrete set of worlds—the claim is more that what exists is a probability distribution over possible worlds. But the distribution will generally not be discrete, so you can't assign a finite number count.
You could say that there is a measure over worlds, but then measure is conserved by time evolution, so future people don't get more weight.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
