Comments on: Future Discounts http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/03/future-discounts.html Overcoming Bias is economist Robin Hanson’s blog, on honesty, signaling, disagreement, forecasting, and the far future. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 01:09:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Hedonic Treader http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/03/future-discounts.html#comment-469653 Hedonic Treader Sat, 09 Apr 2011 23:12:05 +0000 http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=22255#comment-469653 Why avoid eternal recurrence? If you find a lossless substrate, program a rich hedonic consciousness narrative into it, then loop. It doesn't have to be daft like "one orgasm"; if you have enough storage capacity, program epic millennia of diverse bliss, then loop those. Why avoid eternal recurrence? If you find a lossless substrate, program a rich hedonic consciousness narrative into it, then loop. It doesn’t have to be daft like “one orgasm”; if you have enough storage capacity, program epic millennia of diverse bliss, then loop those.

]]> By: David Strauss http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/03/future-discounts.html#comment-445337 David Strauss Mon, 05 Apr 2010 10:26:13 +0000 http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=22255#comment-445337 As long as we're speculating about a trillion years into the future and the entropic iron grip of the Second Law, I have to express one doubt based on our existence. To put this consideration into the context of the Second Law, "everything" (in the broadest sense) is, by definition, a closed system. Yet, there exists order in our universe, as evidenced by our own existence. Yet, the Second Law appears to forbid going from nothingness in a closed system to order. So, one of these must be true: (1) I'm unreasonably assuming that nothingness is the original state of everything. (2) My interpretation of the Second Law is flawed; order from nothingness is possible. (3) The Second Law isn't universally true; there are secrets to entropy we have yet to unlock. If #3 is the case, there is reason to doubt a conclusion of inevitable, extinction-causing scarcity on a galactic scale. As long as we’re speculating about a trillion years into the future and the entropic iron grip of the Second Law, I have to express one doubt based on our existence.

To put this consideration into the context of the Second Law, “everything” (in the broadest sense) is, by definition, a closed system. Yet, there exists order in our universe, as evidenced by our own existence. Yet, the Second Law appears to forbid going from nothingness in a closed system to order.

So, one of these must be true:
(1) I’m unreasonably assuming that nothingness is the original state of everything.
(2) My interpretation of the Second Law is flawed; order from nothingness is possible.
(3) The Second Law isn’t universally true; there are secrets to entropy we have yet to unlock.

If #3 is the case, there is reason to doubt a conclusion of inevitable, extinction-causing scarcity on a galactic scale.

]]> By: gregorylent http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/03/future-discounts.html#comment-445149 gregorylent Thu, 01 Apr 2010 16:48:17 +0000 http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=22255#comment-445149 what, you think there is a universe external to yourself? how silly .. tis all a projection of consciousness, lasts as long as there is consciousness ... and that is eternal ... not infinite, eternal .. enjoy being what, you think there is a universe external to yourself? how silly ..

tis all a projection of consciousness, lasts as long as there is consciousness … and that is eternal … not infinite, eternal ..

enjoy being

]]> By: Mike http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/03/future-discounts.html#comment-444876 Mike Sat, 27 Mar 2010 15:18:36 +0000 http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=22255#comment-444876 The sweep here is breathtaking. I wonder if it is performance art, or perhaps a modern parable tweaking our own deeply loved beliefs? Lovers of this blog enjoy and believe in the broad sweep of reason beyond the bonds of knowledge. Why SHOULD there be a limit? The sweep here is breathtaking. I wonder if it is performance art, or perhaps a modern parable tweaking our own deeply loved beliefs? Lovers of this blog enjoy and believe in the broad sweep of reason beyond the bonds of knowledge. Why SHOULD there be a limit?

]]> By: Robin Hanson http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/03/future-discounts.html#comment-444575 Robin Hanson Tue, 23 Mar 2010 01:24:37 +0000 http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=22255#comment-444575 If you can gain twice of what you want in any given time by burning resources twice as fast, then you will conclude you should burn resources as fast as possible. Such agents will burn fast and bright and then be gone, leaving other agents to sift among their ashes. If you can gain twice of what you want in any given time by burning resources twice as fast, then you will conclude you should burn resources as fast as possible. Such agents will burn fast and bright and then be gone, leaving other agents to sift among their ashes.

]]> By: Steve http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/03/future-discounts.html#comment-444562 Steve Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:50:47 +0000 http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=22255#comment-444562 As long as there are resources, and more than one entity-with-preferences which is made out of resources and requires resources, I think most of Robin's very basic assumptions hold water. As long as there are resources, and more than one entity-with-preferences which is made out of resources and requires resources, I think most of Robin’s very basic assumptions hold water.

]]> By: Steve http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/03/future-discounts.html#comment-444561 Steve Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:47:05 +0000 http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=22255#comment-444561 Proper Dave's saying that "years of life remaining" ceases to have meaning if you're, say, an emulated mind running on the most efficient hardware possible, and you don't care much about keeping up with the scenery in realtime. In this case, your remaining lifespan is how many "processor cycles" you have remaining; and extending those processor cycles by using your resources slowly has no subjective effect. Proper Dave’s saying that “years of life remaining” ceases to have meaning if you’re, say, an emulated mind running on the most efficient hardware possible, and you don’t care much about keeping up with the scenery in realtime. In this case, your remaining lifespan is how many “processor cycles” you have remaining; and extending those processor cycles by using your resources slowly has no subjective effect.

]]> By: Jack (who uses this name at LW) http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/03/future-discounts.html#comment-444541 Jack (who uses this name at LW) Mon, 22 Mar 2010 03:17:46 +0000 http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=22255#comment-444541 It isn't obvious to me what the incentive is to post-pone resource consumption, at least if resource consumption scales to faster computing speed. If agents prefer a subjectively long lifespan the best plan is to use all their resources immediately to run their software as fast as possible. Agents get a long, fulfilling life doing whatever in simulated environments while minimizing external threats (using their resources before anyone has a chance to steal or tax them). Maybe some would have a quixotic desire to be around in the end or aspire to escape heat death but in general "slowing down the universe" seems like a better strategy than "lasting longer". It isn’t obvious to me what the incentive is to post-pone resource consumption, at least if resource consumption scales to faster computing speed. If agents prefer a subjectively long lifespan the best plan is to use all their resources immediately to run their software as fast as possible. Agents get a long, fulfilling life doing whatever in simulated environments while minimizing external threats (using their resources before anyone has a chance to steal or tax them). Maybe some would have a quixotic desire to be around in the end or aspire to escape heat death but in general “slowing down the universe” seems like a better strategy than “lasting longer”.

]]> By: RobbL http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/03/future-discounts.html#comment-444513 RobbL Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:41:15 +0000 http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=22255#comment-444513 Robin, Isn't the real problem with your line of thinking that it is almost certainly wrong? We have the history of billions of years of the universe to examine and this idea that some organism spreads all of the place just doesn't happen. Of course the past is not completely predictive of the future, but it is a pretty good guide after all these years. Most likely we won't be around to spread or we will lose the energy somehow. Robin,
Isn’t the real problem with your line of thinking that it is almost certainly wrong? We have the history of billions of years of the universe to examine and this idea that some organism spreads all of the place just doesn’t happen. Of course the past is not completely predictive of the future, but it is a pretty good guide after all these years. Most likely we won’t be around to spread or we will lose the energy somehow.

]]> By: kentucky http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/03/future-discounts.html#comment-444488 kentucky Sat, 20 Mar 2010 22:09:45 +0000 http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=22255#comment-444488 <em>But what if you reach the fundamental limits on efficiency? In that case you how “fast” or “slow” you use your resources are meaningless.</em> No it isn't. If you use the resources quickly, you may enjoy a high standard of living, but you'll run out sooner. If you conserve them via low population growth/low consumption, you'll last longer before starving to death. But what if you reach the fundamental limits on efficiency? In that case you how “fast” or “slow” you use your resources are meaningless.

No it isn’t. If you use the resources quickly, you may enjoy a high standard of living, but you’ll run out sooner. If you conserve them via low population growth/low consumption, you’ll last longer before starving to death.

]]>