From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Fri Jun 14 2002 - 06:23:01 MDT
John Clark writes
> "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin@tsoft.com> Wrote:
>
> >I disapprove of certain computations, those that cause
> >beings to undergo unnecessarily painful experiences.
>
> I agree.
Yet your agreement is qualified by non-local considerations.
You disapprove of a certain computation only if it never
occurred before in the history of the universe.
Evidently you also wouldn't object to a certain computation
if it were (somehow) certain that it was going to occur in
the future (in your coordinate system). As I wrote
> > My simple phrasing does not include qualifiers about what may
> > be happening simultaneously (in my reference frame) across the
> > galaxy somewhere, nor something that happened (past tense in
> > my reference frame) far away long ago.
>
> Your reference frame is irrelevant and so is any objective time frame, the
> only important thing is the subjective time of the computational being.
Would the subjective time be zero if the victim's memory is
being reset on the hour? Thus the victim emerges from the
anesthetic (of a painful operation) claiming that a lot of
pain never really happened to him.
We should pay less attention to whatever subjective delusions
or mistakes an entity is making concerning his or her own
experiences if we know better (and have legitimate grounds
for knowing better).
Please, though, do not take too much license with that remark;
for example, our concern is based, after all, on the subjective
pain or pleasure of the subject. I am only asking that it be
integrated over all points equally.
> Earlier I criticized thought experiments based on feeling but now I'm going
> to do the same thing: You are going to be hanged in one hour but before you
> swing I show you proof that the universe is a closed loop and everything
> including your life will be rerun without the slightest deviation an
> infinite number of time. Do you feel better now?
No, I do not feel any better, but there is a reason that
your experiment here doesn't have much bite. The reason
is that the construction "what if the universe repeats
over and over" is well known to have a lot of attendant
problems. The first is, from what reference frame or
system clock is it even meaningful to say that it repeats?
To sharpen your idea, we should suppose that one is familiar
with a process whereby some people get their lives extended
by getting to repeat certain years of their lives. You are
able to "look in" on someone who has been granted this
extension. Let's say, in fact, that you get to look in on
a deceased relative who is re-living his or her best years.
This is *not* just a motion picture or other record: the
events are happening in exactly the same real way that your
life is happening to you. (It's just like the Nazi torture
of the little girl except it's good instead of bad.)
Two key observations follow from this: one, when you are
watching others, it occurs to you that it may be you yourself
who are watched. If you think that some good is being done
to them, then allow that some good is being done to you
The second is that I'm certainly not disputing that part
of one's value system can easily include preference for
"new" experience. I have no problem with that, within
reason. Recall that I'm only saying that repeated experience
is not a no-op.
Finally, as you realize, we are really back to square one
here. I don't think that you've answered all my points,
though, but I'll be summarizing them by and by.
> Personally I would not feel one bit better and in fact
> the revelation would seem pretty close to
> meaningless, but your mileage may vary..
No, I agree with you. Unless stated just so, the revelation
that "the universe repeats for ever" doesn't do anything.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:47 MST