On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:

> A) The test described where the simulation process forks 8 times and 256
> copies are created and they each see a different pattern of the ball
> changing color

Duplicating a brain is not enough, the intelligence has NOT forked until
there is something different about them, such as one remembering seeing a
red ball and the other remember seeing a green ball, only then do they
fork. It was the decision made by somebody or something outside the
simulation to make sure all 256 saw a difference sequence of colored balls
that created 256 distinct minds. And to a simulated physicist a decision
made outside the simulation would be indistinguishable from being random,
that is to say the simulated laws of physics could not be used to figure
out what that decision would be.

> B) A test where the AI is not duplicated but instead a random number
> generator (controlled entirely outside the simulation) determines whether
> the ball changes to red or blue with 50% probability 8 times* Then *the
> AI (or AIs) could not say whether test A occurred first or test B occurred
> first.
> Both A and B are identical in that the intelligence doesn't know what it
is going to see next; but increasingly convoluted  thought experiments are
not needed to demonstrate that everyday fact. The only difference is that
in A lots of copies are made of the intelligence and in B they are not; but
as the intelligence would have no way of knowing if a copy had been made of
itself or not nor would it have any way of knowing if it was the original
or the copy, subjectively it doesn't matter if A or B is true.

So yes, subjectively the intelligence would have no way of knowing if A was
true or B, or to put it another way subjectively it would make no

> I reformulated the UDA in a way that does not use any pronouns at all,
> and it doesn't matter if you consider the question from one view or from
> all the views, the conclusion is the same.

Yes, the conclusion is the same, and that is the not very profound
conclusion that you never know what you're going to see next, and Bruno's
grand discovery of First Person Indeterminacy is just regular old dull as
dishwater indeterminacy first discovered by Og the caveman. After the big
buildup it's a bit of a letdown actually.

  John K Clark

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to