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

91–100 of 133 posts

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

#91

Post by Reelin »

jbotz wrote: post #71
3pt14159 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 exi…

> Infinity != Everything

More precisely, infinite sets come in different sizes. For example, there are provably more real numbers than natural numbers even though both sets are infinitely large. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number)

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

#92

Post by pbhjpbhj »

KerrickStaley wrote: post #58

Here is an explanation of Dust Theory from Wikipedia: "[Dust theory states that] there is no difference, even in principle, between physics and mathematics, and that all mathematically possible structures exist, among them our physics and therefore our spacetime...The dust theory implies that all possible universes exist and are equally real, emerging spontaneously from their own mathematical self-consistency." I thi…

Not familiar with the concept, but how does it square with Godels Incompleteness theory, is any mathematical universe even possible?

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

#93

Post by scarmig »

I've not read the book, but I'm trying to digest this. For someone who has a good grasp of Dust Theory, if you answer from its perspective...

1) Does believing that consciousness is simulateable commit you to thinking of consciousness as a purely mathematical object, apart from any physical process it might model?

2) If the universe were just an infinite space filled with dust in a wild zoo of different configurations, does my consciousness exist in it so long you can find a dust configuration that admits a mathematical representation that's isomorphic to the one representing my "real" consciousness?

3) How does complexity fit into this? If the entirety of the universe were a single static point particle, would consciousness still fall out of it? It seems as if it could, if you had a sufficiently complicated encoding scheme.

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

#94

Post by rwallace »

3pt14159 wrote: post #57
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…

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…

Suppose we grant that hell exists with some nonzero (albeit tiny) measure.

By the same logic, heaven (some extraordinarily joyous and worthwhile state of existence) also exists with some nonzero measure.

You probably feel that the latter cannot outweigh the former (even though it logically should). Essentially that bad outweighs good. But why do you feel that? Literally, what is the cause of your brain containing that feeling?

It's because human intuition evolved in a world of asymmetric harms and benefits. For an animal living on Earth - the state in which we evolved - a single bad event can cause death, which is a greater harm than can (for most animals) be outweighed by any single good event.

Okay. So evolution gave us intuition tuned for the tradeoffs of life as a mortal animal, that often generates valid conclusions while we are living as such. But once we start talking about wild metaphysics like dust theory, all that goes out the window. The basic premise is that we are immortal! So if we are going to accept such wild metaphysical speculations at all, the first thing we need to do when thinking about them is remember that they completely invalidate our intuitive feelings about things like bad outweighing good.

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

#95

Post by davidivadavid »

goldenkey wrote: post #70
vladTheInhaler wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The Model vs The Map

Syntax vs semantics?

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

#96

Post by [deleted] »

3pt14159 wrote: post #57
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…

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…

[deleted]

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

#97

Post by canjobear »

chr1 wrote: post #88
ajconway wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not enough if the mapping function does not use the information from the random set. For instance it is easy to construct a mapping from ordered digits of pi to ordered letters of your comment, but all of the information of your comment will be in the mapping.

Exactly. The mapping function is almost always essentially a lookup table where you look up a dust configuration and get out a real-world configuration. The fact that you can construct this mapping doesn't mean much IMO.

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

#98

Post by KerrickStaley »

echelon wrote: post #82
KerrickStaley wrote: post #58

Here is an explanation of Dust Theory from Wikipedia: "[Dust theory states that] there is no difference, even in principle, between physics and mathematics, and that all mathematically possible structures exist, among them our physics and therefore our spacetime...The dust theory implies that all possible universes exist and are equally real, emerging spontaneously from their own mathematical self-consistency." I thi…

So this is some kind of fancy many worlds theory? Except instead of branching on outcomes, we simply fill up possibility space with everything conceivable?

Yes, the assertion (as I understand it) is that not only do different branches of our own world exist, but so also do all other mathematically consistent universes, even if they follow different rules of physics.

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

#99

Post by X6S1x6Okd1st »

foobarbecue wrote: post #85
X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imo the third part should have just been a sequel

I think the third part should not have been published at all. That environmental determinist ethnography stuff felt like it was straight out of old school racist colonial philosophy. I did think their naming scheme was great though.

Yeah I'd prefer to have not read it either, but I can't take that back. I typically suggest people read the book, but feel free to stop at the third part.

It did have some weird regressive vibes, the only redeeming part to me was the idea that multiple distinct groups were able to survive and had to make major changes to adapt, the bit about the different lines descended from the eves was just weird.

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

#100

Post by drdeca »

Reelin wrote: post #91
jbotz wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 exi…

> Infinity != Everything More precisely, infinite sets come in different sizes. For example, there are provably more real numbers than natural numbers even though both sets are infinitely large. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number )

While true, I don’t think this is the distinction they are getting at. Rather, I think they are getting at the distinction between “infinitely many integers” and “all integers”, (Or possibly between “a set with infinite measure” vs “the entire measure space”).
Post reply on HN