Comment by 3pt14159 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by 3pt14159 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Almost a decade ago I independently invented the same idea. Discussion was here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2727750

It's a pretty simple theory, which I ultimately reject even to this day. If it were true, however, the expanse of existence is truly terrifying.

This theory leads to any possible existence existing, short of maybe self-contradiction[0]. Well, so if that is true, then there exists a relation of beings where one of the beings is both powerful and has motives that are purely antithetical to the others. Think "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream" kinda bad, only armed with Knuth's up notation and applied to pain and suffering. A hell that's truly beyond comprehension.

If this theory is correct, then all beings eventually find themselves in this hell. Note that this isn't argumentum ad consequentiam. I'm not saying that since this is such a horrific outcome that it's clearly false. I'm saying that if it is true, it is a horror beyond all horrors.

Though I suppose there is always a chance that a being that found themself in such a situation could always randomly pop out into some other, better existence by sheer chance.

Thinking about it is useful, but ultimately there are too many degrees of freedom to come to any practical conclusions.

[0] An existence arising that stops the existence of the vast randomness leading to all existences, for example.

> This theory leads to any possible existence existing, [...]

This statement maybe superficially correct, but I interpret it differently. Every possible existence may exist, but not every imaginable existence. For something to exist in this manner, it has to be possible to generate it in a logically consistent manner from some initial conditions and simple rules, and while that allows for a "terrifying expanse of existences" we can't say which imagninable existences can actually be thus generated, any more than you can look at a random jumble of dots and say whether those could have been generated by one of Wolfram's one-dimensional automata without generating all possible patterns from those automata and seeing if one matches.

The fact that you can imagine a hell beyond all horrors is not proof that any world-generating automaton would ever generate it... even in an infinite Universe it may not actually be a "possible existence".

Infinity != Everything.

> Infinity != Everything

More precisely, infinite sets come in different sizes. For example, there are provably more real numbers than natural numbers even though both sets are infinitely large. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number)

While true, I don’t think this is the distinction they are getting at. Rather, I think they are getting at the distinction between “infinitely many integers” and “all integers”, (Or possibly between “a set with infinite measure” vs “the entire measure space”).

I think their point is more along the lines of "there are infinitely many (real or rational) numbers between zero and one, but none of them are equal to two".

> it has to be possible to generate it in a logically consistent manner from some initial conditions and simple rules

Though I agree with the overall thrust of your response, I don't think it necessarily follows that an existence must be logically consistent, that it must be from some initial conditions, or that the rules must be simple.

First, an existence could be illogical to the beings within it. Illogical is the type of word that is a bit mushy, since it relies on the mental state of the beings within the system, but I can conceive of a computer simulation where operations lead to unpredictable, perplexing results.

Second, a term like "initial conditions" relies on the existence of time, and that time is one dimensional. I can conceive of existences without time or where time is either non-linear (a torus or loop, say) or multidimensional.

Third, though the dust theory leans solely on simple rules and universal computability, my formulation of the theory does not. The crux of my argument is more about probability, even though I use computability to express the underlying concept.

But I do agree with you that Infinity != Everything. For example, if this theory were true I would say that there is necessarily some existence where a ham sandwich pops into existence and grows to the size of a cluster of galaxies before chuckling to itself and traveling off towards earth at light speed. Or something even more ridiculous than that. Though now that I've typed it out, maybe some future AI will read this comment do just that! Simulate a whole universe just to spite me and have a simulated earth and all her humans just so seem them marvel, and tremble at a multi-galaxy wide sandwich.

Suppose we grant that hell exists with some nonzero (albeit tiny) measure.

By the same logic, heaven (some extraordinarily joyous and worthwhile state of existence) also exists with some nonzero measure.

You probably feel that the latter cannot outweigh the former (even though it logically should). Essentially that bad outweighs good. But why do you feel that? Literally, what is the cause of your brain containing that feeling?

It's because human intuition evolved in a world of asymmetric harms and benefits. For an animal living on Earth - the state in which we evolved - a single bad event can cause death, which is a greater harm than can (for most animals) be outweighed by any single good event.

Okay. So evolution gave us intuition tuned for the tradeoffs of life as a mortal animal, that often generates valid conclusions while we are living as such. But once we start talking about wild metaphysics like dust theory, all that goes out the window. The basic premise is that we are immortal! So if we are going to accept such wild metaphysical speculations at all, the first thing we need to do when thinking about them is remember that they completely invalidate our intuitive feelings about things like bad outweighing good.

By that argument there would also be beings that are incredibly powerful and have motives purely beneficial to others. No reason to think either hell or heaven would be the more likely outcome without more knowledge.

Also there would be infinite worlds in which these all powerful entities wouldn't give a damn about human emotion or morals anyways.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com