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

From: Simon Gordon (
Date: Fri May 02 2003 - 07:07:07 MDT

 --- Samantha Atkins <> wrote: >

> > 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.
> How so? It is doubtful that such a transtion is
> just a matter of the FAI's desire. It might take a
> much more gradual movement to get *you* versus
> something wearing your skin across that much of a
> gap.

Assuming that there is no Anti-FAI which is capable of
proliferating evil across the multiverse, then FAI
dominates and so goodness will be maximised meaning
that any unjustly suffering being throughout the
multiverse will be recognised as needing to be
urgently rescued from their suffering. As Eliezer has
said, higher level intelligences which have the
ability to make choices can configure the subjective
conditional probability weightings, applying for each
subjective state throughout the multiverse. This means
that is it overwhelming likely that if you are in a
Hell state you will *immediately* be rescued. From
moment to moment the probabilities will always be in
your favour and so the vast majority of hell-suffering
beings will have a very fleeting experiance of this
suffering. This is certainly true at Level III, its
difficult to see how FAI can maintain such dominance
at the Level IV however. Note that by 'FAI' here im
not just referring to friendly AI but friendliness and
goodness in general or the 'godly nature' of all
beings, so this helps the earlier sections of the
multiverse if FTL communication turns out to be
impossible, but i am assuming that godliness of beings
is ubiquitously dominant over say petty-mindedness or
mere rationality.

Another thing to be said is that hells are less
reasonable than Apothesis'. We can all see why
intelligent beings have reasons to want Apotheosis and
the empathetic motivations for allowing others to
experiance this, but it is difficult to see why they
would also want Hell. Given that they are less
reasonable, they would presumably require more
explanation, they may even warrant greater Kolmogorov
complexity as you increase the number of descriptive
specifications - that would mean apotheosis' have
naturally higher probabilistic occurence frequencies
than hells, among all worlds.

> > 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.
> >
> Well, it is all pretty darn hypothetical really. It
> is amusing
> how the list is beginning to look like a discussion
> of Tibetan
> Buddhism with hell worlds and the equivalent of
> cloud dakini
> land. :-)

In *your* eyes it is hypothetical, in *my* eyes it is
hard theory. I would never refer to the "tegmark
hypothesis". Perhaps you have lived so long in
limboland that you have a hard time trying to imagine
either being in Hell or Apotheosis, but because
technically you *can* imagine being in those worlds it
means that they do exist. Your mind does not imagine
things which do not exist for the simple reason that
things which do not exist have no substance or meaning
and therefore cannot be imagined.

> > 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
> > danger?
> >
> Why would it be rational to care about what you
> cannot conceivably do anything about?

It wouldnt necessarily be *rational* but it would be a
travesty of human emotions if we didnt. Certainly *I*
care about those beings that suffer even if i cant do
anything about their suffering, am i being irrational?

> I am not terribly interested in preserving
> "qualities of
> humanness" or any other artifacts and aspects of
> past states of
> being beyond their usefulness and/or the happiness I
> derive from
> them. Why would I be? I think it will be a
> disservice to
> ourselves if we cling to what no longer serves us
> just out of
> squemishness or sentimentality regarding letting go
> of
> where/what we used to be. Carrying all that baggage
> could
> really slow us down and even cripple us.

I have a tendency to agree with you. But at the same
time we dont want to abandon our heritage completely.
It would be quite easy for us to sail off in the spock
direction and abandon all of our human emotions but i
dont think that this is really what we want to do.
Sure many of our emotions and complicated, unnecessary
and even silly but at the same time they identify us
with the emergent complexity that human culture has
managed to evolve over the millenia, they also help
weave great stories for the fictional charactors that
we can all identify with. I dont think we want to end
up in a uniform society full of scientific
rationalists and empty of artists, i think we still
want to preserve the lovers and the romantics and the
jealous feuds and all the other little idiosynchracies
that humanity has developed.

> As I am currently in the process of jettisoning a
> lot of mystical/religous baggage, I have some
> immediate understanding of this theme.

Interesting. Which religions? And what mystical
baggage have you jettisoned?


Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience

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