Re: Infinite Hells/Infinite Apotheosis' was: Infinite universe

From: Simon Gordon (
Date: Wed Apr 30 2003 - 14:01:18 MDT

 --- Paul Hughes <> wrote:
> > you
> > can never turn the subjective probability of a
> Hell
> > scenario happening to any given being into a zero.
> > Which means that somewhere out there are perfectly
> > innocent beings going through absolute Hells, much
> > worse than Dante could have ever envisaged, and
> this
> > is happening in a very real sense (there's even an
> > infinite ensemble of copies of you which will fall
> > into a Hell scenario in the next 10 seconds).
> Of course the opposite can also be said. Every
> single
> one of these hellish state-spaces will immediately
> jump into an an extremely large number of extremely
> positive, possibly apothesosis states lasting
> indefinitely.

The reason i am more concerned with Hell worlds than
Apothesis worlds is that in Apothesis worlds the
sentients have it easy, they dont need to suffer. Of
course we can still empathasize with beings that dont
suffer but thats a bit of a waste of our empathy. As
humans it is natural for us to react more to those who
do suffer, and to extend our sympathies most to those
who also suffer the most.

Assuming FAI, or the proliferations of FAI which have
a same basic ethical system NOT alien to humankind,
are moreorless ubiquitous throughout the multiverse.
Then the subjective probability of you quickly jumping
into an Apotheosis state if you are already unlucky
enough to be in a Hell state is very VERY high.
But but but...when i talk about "the cusp of
infinitesimalism" im not joking. Im well aware of the
ridiculously low probability involved subjectively in
remaining for any extended length of time in a Hell
world. Those sentients on the very cusp however, who
follow a trajectory which a hypothesized devil would
delight in i.e. those that necessarily experiance
indefinate extended (and heightened) pain and
suffering, are just as real as You and I. The fact
that we are aware of the existance of them is indeed
shocking. Its especially shocking to learn that there
is absolutely nothing we can do about it, just as the
word "necessary" implies.

Given what i have said above how our empathy works:
used towards those that suffer most. Far future AIs
(assuming they havent already abandoned their human
empathy anchors) are going to have some obvious
problems with this "necessary-ness". In their time and
space, all sentients around them will presumably be
living a relative bliss (Apotheosis state as you call
it) and its very difficult to see a need for local-use
of empathy in such a state. Why would you need to care
about someone who you already know is in absolutely no

I suggest that in order for these future beings to
keep their anthropic empathy they will have to target
it elsewhere, to those beings that actually suffer.
And i see the obvious target of this as the necessary
cusp of suffering implied by the Level IV multiverse.
All such worlds would be accessible by simulation, so
the need for advanced beings to express their
heightened humanlike empathy may end up becoming quite
a morbid pastime, as beings try to simulate the
feeling of being in a Hell world and experiencing
intense pain. [Aside: Can there be such a thing as the
qualia of infinite pain felt by a consciousness in a
single moment? We had better hope not!!] Im beginning
to think that at some stage, when advanced sentients
finally reach the state of maximum local apotheosis,
it might be a very wise idea for them to abandon their
empathy, at least as we know it in the human form.
This could be an unnecessary sacrafice of at least one
quality of humanness though so im still in favour of
extended ignorance holidays :-)


Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:42 MDT