Live data from Hacker News

A Brief Explanation of Greg Egan’s Dust Theory

cephalopods.blog

71–80 of 133 posts

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

#71
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…

Almost a decade ago I independently invented the same idea. Discussion was here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2727750 It's a pretty simple theory, which I ultimately reject even to this day. If it were true, however, the expanse of existence is truly terrifying. This theory leads to any possible existence existing, short of maybe self-contradiction[0]. Well, so if that is true, then there exists a relation of…

> This theory leads to any possible existence existing, [...]

This statement maybe superficially correct, but I interpret it differently. Every possible existence may exist, but not every imaginable existence. For something to exist in this manner, it has to be possible to generate it in a logically consistent manner from some initial conditions and simple rules, and while that allows for a "terrifying expanse of existences" we can't say which imagninable existences can actually be thus generated, any more than you can look at a random jumble of dots and say whether those could have been generated by one of Wolfram's one-dimensional automata without generating all possible patterns from those automata and seeing if one matches.

The fact that you can imagine a hell beyond all horrors is not proof that any world-generating automaton would ever generate it... even in an infinite Universe it may not actually be a "possible existence".

Infinity != Everything.

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

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Permutation City I haven't read that book since the early 90's but it dealt with ideas that have really stuck in my mind.

The main detail I remember from that book is that credit card companies would track whoever you dined with at a restaurant and then serve you ads featuring computer-generated people who resembled those people to manipulate you into trust. Pretty ahead of its time for 1994!

At the time, using computational chemistry to simulate an entire living, evolving life form was just a mind blowing idea.

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

#74
Greg Egan is my favorite author. My favorite book of his is Diaspora.

If you loved Permutation City you may also love Diaspora. The first chapter of Diaspora is brilliant, if you try reading it, and find that you enjoy it, you will then like the whole book.

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

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You call that roundabout word-salad concoction impressive?

In contrast to the OP it's at least intelligible?

Sorry, I didn't read your post properly (and it was only 2 lines). I though you meant the original article, not twitter. That was dumb.

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

#76
> In fact, even if you imagine a static set of relations that do not evolve in time there still exists encoding schemes that can interpret this set of relations as any arbitrary function, so in some sense the set of mathematical objects that represent “you” and “me” and all possible minds can be said to exist in these timeless relations.

The argument fails because "you" and "me" are processes, embodied agents while the interpretations of data are "virtual".

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

#77

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…

If you believe in mathematical realism than the fact that there surely exists a mapping between a random set of data and a simulation with conscious agents in it, that should be enough.

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

#78
post #74

Greg Egan is my favorite author. My favorite book of his is Diaspora. If you loved Permutation City you may also love Diaspora. The first chapter of Diaspora is brilliant, if you try reading it, and find that you enjoy it, you will then like the whole book.

Thumbs up for Diaspora, that's probably my favorite of his.

If anyone wants to sample him first, if you like the short stories on his website, you'll almost certainly like his books.

https://www.gregegan.net/BIBLIOGRAPHY/Online.html

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

#79
> If you think experience is simulatable, you buy computational or “patternist” theories of identity, there are some very strange implications that are not commonly brought up.

Maybe the sentence isn't worded correctly, but these are two entirely different claims. It's relatively simple and straightforward to argue that one's experience is simulatable, but that identity lies in the instance of the simulation itself, so a copy of a simulation would be a different being. That two machines running the same computational process represent the same entity is a separate, unverifiable claim.

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

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neal Stephenson tends to cram too many side stories into his books, some of them quite boring :/ I kind of regret that I slogged through Cryptonomicon and I would advise anyone to stop reading after 200 pages if bored, the next 700 won't really be better.

I enjoyed cryptonomicon but get where you're coming from! I think his books would be way better with aggressive editing. Seveneves was great but so many long lame sections should have been removed.

Imo the third part should have just been a sequel
Post reply on HN