Le Samedi 28 Mai 2005 07:21, "Hal Finney" a écrit :
> It is the same with all the examples.  Causing more experiences of
> joy is better than causing more experiences of sadness.  Even with
> the one person who lives from day to day, it still applies.  He is not
> subjectively aware of his measure changing, but if he or anyone else has
> objective awareness of the circumstance, the same logic that applies in
> the other examples works here as well.  Give more happiness to the days
> with greater measure.  That makes the world a better place.

Good faith, but I see no point, no justification.

> Now for an interesting twist.  Our measure decreases steadily in life.
> Every day we have a certain probability of dying, and our measure
> decreases by that fraction.  

I don't understand how the measure can decrease if there exists an infinity of 
computations passing through a particular states (assuming you talk about 
comp.), meaning any particular states of "my" life is 
emulated/simulated/emergent creation of an infinity of computations. The 
problems when talking about this, an OM, is the "I", what is it in this 
configuration ? Does the feeling of being is just an illusion, despite it be 
a strong feeling ?

> The reasoning in the examples above would 
> imply that it is better to have happiness when our measure is high, which
> is when we are young.  Unhappiness in old age has less impact.  So if
> you are putting off some happiness, do it today, don't procrastinate.
> (Of course, you get much the same result in a non-multiverse model,
> where putting off a reward makes you risk dying before you get to
> experience it.)
> Hal Finney

Like I said, it's a beautiful idea, but it is just faith.

Quentin Anciaux

Reply via email to