From: Mike Dougherty (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Feb 24 2006 - 19:51:43 MST
It's the ultimate "survival of the fittest" - that an infinite number of
universes had to be destroyed just to actualize that one moment of
consciousness. Imagine that THIS is the local maxima for enjoyable world
experience for every inhabitant. That means every other less-fit universe
that was destroyed was ideologically worse than this one and rightfully
deserved to be recycled into the energy required to power this single
universe. Though if this is the best our current power levels can generate,
we need to work on improving the efficiency of the reality engine.
On 2/24/06, Philip Goetz <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 2/23/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > George Dvorsky wrote:
> > > Our friend Robin Hanson says that Many Worlds spells potential doom:
> > > http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn8766.html
> > This is a sensationalistic misinterpretation of Hanson's argument.
> Well, it's really and undersensationalization. Hansons argument
> entails that, at every moment, we split off into a large number of
> different universes, and in almost all of those universes, we are
> immediately destroyed. So the article is wrong to say that "our
> universe" may one day be destroyed. It should more properly say, you
> WILL be destroyed (many times over) one femtosecond from now.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:56 MDT