Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–147 of 147 posts

Re: 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

#141

Post by loup-vaillant »

Confusion wrote: post #140
Eliezer wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm afraid you just don't understand the QM experiments in question. For there to be a secret difference between the two particles requires observed reality to be a lie.

I think I understand these experiments pretty well, having executed experiments of their kind myself. The mathematics tells us the particles are indistinguishable. The physics tells us that the mathematics describes the observations pretty accurately. But they remain observations with an experimental error and they leave room for the especially interesting options of 1) small deviations that are amplified when you in…

> No observation allows you to conclude anything about what gives rise to those observations.

No, but they sure should have a damn powerful influence over your estimated probabilities for your previous hypothesises. Many of those observations are tests, after all.

Now, though I don't yield QM with my own strength, I can tell that the basics have little to do with chaotic systems, and that most of our intuitions are better thrown out the widow. Really, go read that sequence, at least until you can parse "complex amplitude distribution over a configuration space". It's accessible, it's established science, and I trust Eliezer reported it accurately.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_physics_sequence/

Re: 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

#142

Post by loup-vaillant »

pfedor wrote: post #139
loup-vaillant wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use QM in my argument because it is a direct cause of my believing that cut & paste transportation is in principle possible. Before I knew about that, I was in fact quite worried: philosophical arguments (like the Generalized Anti Zombie Principle) make sense, but I trust physics better. I don't know of the views of Penrose. Do you recommend a link?

Penrose believes that the nature of consciousness is connected to a physical phenomenon which happens in our brains but not in computers, therefore he does not believe a computer can posses consciousness no matter what software you put on it. He's written several books on the subject as well as given a number of talks which are available on YouTube, but I don't have one link which I'd recommend above others. Sorry. I…

§1: OK, thanks.

§2: Your argument actually doesn't feel like such a stretch. QM is just the final nail in the coffin, that made me actually comfortable with cut & paste transportation.

§3: We could actually get the same effect as the mad scientist, actually. Freeze my body, upload, lock me in a virtual cell for a few subjective hours, download by rearranging my neurons (or even my whole body) according to my virtual trip, reboot. There, you get the same final state: same atoms, and same memories compared to what they would be if you locked me in a physical cell instead.

Re: 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

#143

Post by Confusion »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #141
Confusion wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I understand these experiments pretty well, having executed experiments of their kind myself. The mathematics tells us the particles are indistinguishable. The physics tells us that the mathematics describes the observations pretty accurately. But they remain observations with an experimental error and they leave room for the especially interesting options of 1) small deviations that are amplified when you in…

> No observation allows you to conclude anything about what gives rise to those observations. No, but they sure should have a damn powerful influence over your estimated probabilities for your previous hypothesises. Many of those observations are tests , after all. Now, though I don't yield QM with my own strength, I can tell that the basics have little to do with chaotic systems, and that most of our intuitions are…

  Really, go read that sequence
From glancing through the materials, I gather there is much in that sequence I already know. The problem is that I disagree with the conclusions that are drawn, which is entirely possible, because there are many opportunities for disagreement in these sketches of reality.

For instance, the whole sequence about MWI doesn't succeed in making a point with me. I understand it perfectly well: it's an interpretation that speaks to the imagination and I fully agree it's the interpretation that makes the most sense, but there actually is no experimental evidence whatsoever that distinguishes MWI as a better interpretation than many others out there. MWI is just another narrative that attempts to make a mathematical framework yield to our understanding. What makes sense is the actual criterion being used here and, as you said earlier, we should leave our intuitions behind.

Re: 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

#144

Post by loup-vaillant »

Confusion wrote: post #143
loup-vaillant wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No observation allows you to conclude anything about what gives rise to those observations. No, but they sure should have a damn powerful influence over your estimated probabilities for your previous hypothesises. Many of those observations are tests , after all. Now, though I don't yield QM with my own strength, I can tell that the basics have little to do with chaotic systems, and that most of our intuitions are…

Really, go read that sequence From glancing through the materials, I gather there is much in that sequence I already know. The problem is that I disagree with the conclusions that are drawn, which is entirely possible, because there are many opportunities for disagreement in these sketches of reality. For instance, the whole sequence about MWI doesn't succeed in making a point with me. I understand it perfectly well:…

No, the actual criterion being used here is what is simplest according to Kolmogorov complexity. In other words, Occam's razor. Nothing to do with human intuitions. If you have Occam's priors, then MWI is far more probable than OWI, and the fact that physicists thought about it later simply doesn't count. (Well, it counts in the social process that is Science, but Science is different from Occam's priors + probability theory).

Anyway, MWI is irrelevant with respect to cut & paste transportation. Just remember that perfect equality in QM is different in kind from almost perfect equality. Meaning that even with imperfect instruments, the result you obtain with perfect equality are wildly different from the results you obtain otherwise. Way past the margin for error of the instruments we have.

Yes, the theory says that there is a way for testing something perfectly, with imperfect instruments. By some miracle, the theory is the Kolmogorov-simplest one we currently know that match the experimental results. By another miracle, the theory is (as far as I know) uncontroversial up to MWI vs OWI.

Another thing the theory says is that the notion of identity should be thrown out the window. That applies to small factors in configuration space (particles) as well as large ones (paintings, human bodies). It doesn't say we should treat small factors differently than large ones. So basically, if you manage to make a copy accurate up to thermal noise, you got yourself a second original. And if the "original" original were destroyed, well, what's left is the "copy" original, which actually is the original, period (because identity doesn't count).

I'd be surprised to learn that this argument is controversial among physicists.

Re: 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

#145

Post by Confusion »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #144
Confusion wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really, go read that sequence From glancing through the materials, I gather there is much in that sequence I already know. The problem is that I disagree with the conclusions that are drawn, which is entirely possible, because there are many opportunities for disagreement in these sketches of reality. For instance, the whole sequence about MWI doesn't succeed in making a point with me. I understand it perfectly well:…

No, the actual criterion being used here is what is simplest according to Kolmogorov complexity . In other words, Occam's razor. Nothing to do with human intuitions. If you have Occam's priors, then MWI is far more probable than OWI, and the fact that physicists thought about it later simply doesn't count. (Well, it counts in the social process that is Science, but Science is different from Occam's priors + probabili…

I'm not sure what the best place to continue such subdiscussions is, but I think we should put an end to it here. Let me just conclude with this:

  I'd be surprised to learn that this argument is controversial among physicists.
The fact that an argument in philosophy is uncontroversial among physicists means exactly nothing, because they are generally too philosophically unsophisticated to respect the post-Popperian criticisms of what their jobs entail and what it is that 'science' produces.

Re: 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

#146

Post by shadowpwner »

mechanical_fish wrote: post #119
bermanoid wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It did take more than a few decades to design, however. I wouldn't really expect a new model to ship inside of forty years. At best, that's like expecting the next version of Windows to ship in the next three hours. That's true only to the extent that the evolution of machine intelligence proceeds via the same processes that led to human intelligence. Which is pretty much impossible, so if we ever get to AGI, we're g…

once we figured out the trick and started a nuclear reaction, the thing blew up in a fraction of a second Please, never use this metaphor again. This level of magical thinking is just embarrassing for all of us. It's like saying that building a house must be a really fast process, because burning the house down goes really quickly. Nuclear weapons blow up easily because, for (e.g.) plutonium, "blowing up" is thermody…

I think he meant blew up in a metaphorical sense, as in "many countries followed in the production/proliferation of nuclear technology."

Re: 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

#147

Post by loup-vaillant »

Confusion wrote: post #145
loup-vaillant wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the actual criterion being used here is what is simplest according to Kolmogorov complexity . In other words, Occam's razor. Nothing to do with human intuitions. If you have Occam's priors, then MWI is far more probable than OWI, and the fact that physicists thought about it later simply doesn't count. (Well, it counts in the social process that is Science, but Science is different from Occam's priors + probabili…

I'm not sure what the best place to continue such subdiscussions is, but I think we should put an end to it here. Let me just conclude with this: I'd be surprised to learn that this argument is controversial among physicists. The fact that an argument in philosophy is uncontroversial among physicists means exactly nothing, because they are generally too philosophically unsophisticated to respect the post-Popperian cr…

OK, here's my conclusion:

We happen to live in a world where the question of cut & paste transportation has been answered by physics. Philosophy is therefore out.

You can reach me by e-mail if you wish (I'm easy to find).

Post reply on HN