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

A Brief Explanation of Greg Egan’s Dust Theory

cephalopods.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 133 posts

Re: A Brief Explanation of Greg Egan’s Dust Theory

#41

Post by codethief »

Udik wrote: post #30
codethief wrote: post #7

He lost me right in the second paragraph: > Because computation is sort of subjective, just a set of relations that can be usefully interpreted as representing a function, this seems to imply that the function you identify with can be interpreted as being simulated by any sufficiently complex set of relations. Can anyone explain? I'm already struggling with the premise: Why should computation be subjective in the fir…

Just by chance, I happened to try to explain the dust theory to a completely uninterested subject today over lunch :) I tried to make it as brief as possible like this: some people believe mathematical truths are necessary and therefore that they exist independently of us discovering them. For example, the entire set of theorems that can be proven from a given set of axioms is already there in the axioms themselves-…

Thank you, that's the first intelligible explanation I've read here on this thread!

Re: A Brief Explanation of Greg Egan’s Dust Theory

#42

Post by vladTheInhaler »

codethief wrote: post #7

He lost me right in the second paragraph: > Because computation is sort of subjective, just a set of relations that can be usefully interpreted as representing a function, this seems to imply that the function you identify with can be interpreted as being simulated by any sufficiently complex set of relations. Can anyone explain? I'm already struggling with the premise: Why should computation be subjective in the fir…

If I understand correctly, it's not that the computation itself is subjective, but that the interpretation of the results is. Like how things are represented in lambda calculus - is this really an integer, or is it just a blob of function applications that has an interpretation consistent with being an integer? That part is subjective. Edit: to be more explicit, the parallel is "is that really a mind, or is it just a blob of molecules that has an interpretation consistent with being a mind?"

Re: A Brief Explanation of Greg Egan’s Dust Theory

#43

Post by db48x »

foobarbecue wrote: post #31
db48x wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd probably like Neal Stephenson's Anathem. It's a Hemn Space argument.

Is that the one that had hundreds of pages of monks hanging around at the beginning? I got bored and couldn't make it through

That's probably the one. It's probably not for everyone; the first part of the book is building a whole and detailed world for the story to exist in, as well as creating an interesting and articulate main character to tell the story. One of the really good things about Anathem is that Stephenson hides a lot of clues and advanced mathematics in the early chapters. For example, there are two very good explanations of configuration spaces (aka Hemn Spaces) which might seem like a complete waste of time, but is actually foreshadowing.

Re: A Brief Explanation of Greg Egan’s Dust Theory

#44

Post by cmehdy »

sxp wrote: post #6

This article doesn't actually explain Dust Theory to someone who hasn't read the book. I haven't found a good standalone explanation of the theory that explains it in a compact manner so my recommendation to people is to read the book. Permutation City is among my top 5 favorite books because I found Dust Theory so mind blowingly amazing from a philosophical standpoint. I haven't seen it discussed elsewhere outside t…

I finished the book last night. It's not a long read in terms of pages, but in the first half particularly it took me quite a few stops to ponder about what had been laid in few sentences. Greg Egan is awesome.

(Sort-of SPOILERS underneath)

I can actually grasp the Dust theory thing pretty well as I followed Durham's realizations, however I somehow can't fathom the "more practical" TVC universe stuff, and perhaps you can enlighten me:

- TVC starts with borrowed compute but somehow connects to the Dust Theory, right?

- The whole "TVC is software and compute-based" at first (some software is even implanted in it), but somehow becomes a self-expanding thing as the story needs it simply by being a mathematical object, am I understanding this correctly?

- Why would a few minutes of compute offer Durham any more relief than a second of it, a theoretical proof of it, or a billion years of it? Since they are even in a position to kickstart something computable, it mathematically exists, therefore by the Dust theory they don't even need to start it in order for everything in the book to happen. Admittedly, that makes for a much shorter book (or a billion trillion other scenarios and then some, whatever floats one's boat)

- Why would the TVC Durham enjoy the continuation while the "flesh" Durham wouldn't? I guess I'm getting personal there, but isn't part of the understanding of this wholeness of existence also the acceptance that whatever currently unsatisfactory situation is but one amongst infinity anyway, and pain is as powerful as you want an illusion to be? (in his case, alienation from society, or lack of purpose once he feels validated). This is the part where I think the book really crosses into Buddhist concepts at times.

I really liked the book, and like a lot of good books it left me with more questions and wonder than I started with. For me, it does make the sound of one hand clapping. :)

Re: A Brief Explanation of Greg Egan’s Dust Theory

#45

Post by codethief »

throwaway_pdp09 wrote: post #16

Looking at other stuff ISTM this is generated by one of them newfangled GPT3 things or whatever: "Nonetheless, It is because of my faith in science and its processes that I have always been of the opinion that the state pension, though grisly from a naive “one-worlder” perspective is actually a remarkably humane, efficient and (dare I say) generous social program." ( https://cephalopods.blog/ ) and if you look at the…

Can anyone with GPT-3 beta access ask GPT-3 to give a summary of "Permutation City"? Given impressive examples like this one[0], I think GPT-3 might do better.

[0] https://twitter.com/paraschopra/status/1284423233047900161

Re: A Brief Explanation of Greg Egan’s Dust Theory

#46

Post by db48x »

codethief wrote: post #40
db48x wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has everything to do with computation, because the mind is just software running on a funny kind of computer. In the novel, many people have had their minds uploaded into regular electrical computers as well, though they're generally not able to run in real time. That's not a counter, because it's just what I said. We all have a subjective inner experience. The premise of the novel is that this subjective inner…

No offense, but I obviously haven't read the novel and can't follow at all. Otherwise I wouldn't be asking. And no, what I said is not what you said. Having read the novel, maybe you're interpreting your own words and/or my words in terms of that novel? That is, maybe you're oblivious to how your words/my words get interpreted when you have not read the novel? Back to the original discussion: > This has everything to…

Not all computation is subjective, but some computations have a subjective viewpoint. We would say that those computations are sapient, or sentient, or self aware, or otherwise describe them as people.

Re: A Brief Explanation of Greg Egan’s Dust Theory

#48

Post by codethief »

db48x wrote: post #46
codethief wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No offense, but I obviously haven't read the novel and can't follow at all. Otherwise I wouldn't be asking. And no, what I said is not what you said. Having read the novel, maybe you're interpreting your own words and/or my words in terms of that novel? That is, maybe you're oblivious to how your words/my words get interpreted when you have not read the novel? Back to the original discussion: > This has everything to…

Not all computation is subjective, but some computations have a subjective viewpoint. We would say that those computations are sapient, or sentient, or self aware, or otherwise describe them as people.

> Not all computation is subjective, but some computations have a subjective viewpoint.

No, you're interpreting them as such. Computation is objective. The only thing is that obviously your outputs depend on your inputs.

Re: A Brief Explanation of Greg Egan’s Dust Theory

#49

Post by throwaway_pdp09 »

codethief wrote: post #45
throwaway_pdp09 wrote: post #16

Looking at other stuff ISTM this is generated by one of them newfangled GPT3 things or whatever: "Nonetheless, It is because of my faith in science and its processes that I have always been of the opinion that the state pension, though grisly from a naive “one-worlder” perspective is actually a remarkably humane, efficient and (dare I say) generous social program." ( https://cephalopods.blog/ ) and if you look at the…

Can anyone with GPT-3 beta access ask GPT-3 to give a summary of "Permutation City"? Given impressive examples like this one[0], I think GPT-3 might do better. [0] https://twitter.com/paraschopra/status/1284423233047900161

You call that roundabout word-salad concoction impressive?

Re: A Brief Explanation of Greg Egan’s Dust Theory

#50

Post by canjobear »

Very interesting to think about. Here's my interpretation of the argument: Suppose you have some system X whose dynamics are those of conscious agents in a world. For example, maybe X is the real world. Suppose that the agents in X really experience consciousness. Now suppose we apply some one-to-one function f to X, yielding Y = f(X). Then Y contains all the same information as X. So who's to say that the agents in X have consciousness but the agents in Y don't? Now by an inverse argument, suppose you randomly encounter some blob of random dust, Z. Then you can always come up with a one-to-one function g mapping Z to X, X = g(Z). So apparently the dust Z already contained all the conscious agents in the universe. Conclusion: The conscious experiences of all agents are present in all sufficiently complex blobs of random dust and all sufficiently complex networks of mathematical relations.

One issue with this argument that hasn't been brought up yet is Kolmogorov complexity. Must random blobs of dust Z will be algorithmically random, not containing any real structure. In that case, the complexity of the function g that decodes Z into X will have to be huge. Essentially, the decoding function g itself will have to contain all the information that eventually ends up in X. So the information about conscious agents isn't really in the dust Z, it's in the decoder g.

Post reply on HN