this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2025
140 points (94.3% liked)

Asklemmy

45322 readers
1955 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
140
What do you believe that most people of your political creed don't? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
519 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain't dead. Remember, don't downvote for disagreements.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Measure theory was discovered to be able to say that a rock twice as large as another rock can be accurately described as being twice as large as another rock, even if it's not discrete. (Detractors will point to the paradox that something can be cut up and reassembled to have more measure with a finite number of cuts, but the cuts have to be infinitely complex so it doesn't apply in reality.)

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I agree a rock can be bigger than another rock. Yet 2 times infinity is not greater than infinity.

Edit: So my point is the interactions may be considered equal.

Edit: to be more pointed, measurement theory only applies to things that we know the shape of. The shape of anything in reality seems infinitely complex to me. Even if we can smooth the atoms out, there is still the EM field being perturbed by the orbiting electrons.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Measure theory can still describe the volume of fractal shapes, for instance using squeeze theorem if you can find an iterative upper and lower bound. Just because something's surface area isn't well-defined doesn't mean the volume isn't. Similarly, the coastline problem may preclude meaningfully measuring a country's perimeter, but its (projected) area is still measurable.

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Wouldn't you agree that surface area is more important to computation and interaction than volume? Things interact at their surface. Therefore computation is infact subject to the coastline paradox?

If you actually try to measure the top surface of a country you run into the same issues as measuring the coast: infinite complexity.

Those projected volumes are practical to calculate, but must be interacted with through the surface.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

True, but I don't agree with you in the first place that number of physical interactions is a good way to measure computation (for instance, I would consider the heat-death of the universe to be the end of computation.). I also am not sure that computation is a particularly good proxy for moral weight, I just think that without it there is no consciousness.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

First, a minor correction:

for instance, I would consider the heat-death of the universe to be the end of computation

This is an easy mistake to make, heat death is actually a very cold noninteracting state, so your point doesn't contradict physical interaction being computation. Though I trust that you really don't see interaction and computation as the same.

Edit: just looked up some heat death info, there is actually quite a range of ideas there so I guess I can't be confident on which one you meant.

In the beginning you said that experience rate was an important factor for moral weight, has that changed? If it hasn't, how do you reconcile that with:

I also am not sure that computation is a particularly good proxy for moral weight,

Also, for my own curiosity: how do you distinguish interaction from computation?

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I don't see why computation is tied to experience rate. You already pointed out examples of what appear to be higher amounts of computation in the brain not apparently tied to experience rate.

I think computation is meaningful, whereas interaction can be high-entropy and meaningless. I would probably need to consult E.T. Jaynes to have more precise definitions of the difference between these notions.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

You already pointed out examples of what appear to be higher amounts of computation in the brain not apparently tied to experience rate.

I actually would say that high interaction is high computation is high experience rate. I don't see how they are separated.

I think computation is meaningful, whereas interaction can be high-entropy and meaningless. I would probably need to consult E.T. Jaynes to have more precise definitions of the difference between these notions.

I'd be extremely curious to see how you define "meaningful" in this context. This seems to drive your moral hierarchy. Correct me if I'm wrong of course.