A very brief explanation of why I'm not concerned about Boltzmann Brains the-lagrangian.blogspot.com/2016/05/why-yo
Conversation
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian that's assuming boltzmann brains run on matter
but it doesn't matter either way if you buy egan's dust hypothesis
2
1
Replying to
looking at dust theory quickly, it seems to be the simulation hypothesis, which is a separate issue
1
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian dust theory is the idea that a computation is unaware of continuity breaks in the hardware running it
1
1
4
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian suspend a program, send its state over the internet, continue elsewhere, the program won't care
dust is the extreme of this
1
1
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian you can even shuffle the execution steps around arbitrarily as long as the computation's internal arrow of time is preserved
2
1
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian Shuffling execution steps can naively only be done after generating something to shuffle.
1
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian It seems as if the causal structure of computation is the computation, not the, uh, specific bits I suppose.
1
2
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian Yeah, sending a sim over the net preserves causality, dust hypothesis does not.
1
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian Having every permutation is different from running every computation if we require causal structure
1
1
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian actually the causal structure is perfectly well preserved (when seen from the inside)
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian What if there isn't an inside when there's not an appropriate causal structure? That's my claim.
2
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian thought experiment: take a machine with finite states, the computation is a path through these
1
1
Show replies