Not a paradox but Roko's Basilisk is a fun one
this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
118 points (88.3% liked)
Asklemmy
43336 readers
966 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- 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.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Roku's basilisk just doesn't make sense to me because any semi-competent AI would be able to tell that it is not punishing the people that failed to help create it it's just wasting energy punishing a simulacrum.
We are not going to suddenly be teleported into a future of torment. If the AI had the ability to pluck people out of the past it should have no reason to waste it on torture porn.
load more comments
(3 replies)
For some reason "The following statement is true." "The previous statement is false." has always tried to send my brain into an infinite loop.
load more comments
(5 replies)
So, I like the Roko's Basalisk paradox.
Basically, a super-powered future A.I. that knows whether or not you will build it. If you decide to do nothing, once it gets built, it will torture your consciousness forever (bringing you "back from the dead" or whatever is closest to that for virtual consciousness ability). If you drop everything and start building it now, you're safe.
Love the discussion of this post, btw.
load more comments
(10 replies)
In gridiron football, if a penalty is committed close enough to the end zone, instead of the normal penalty yardage, the ball is spotted half the distance to the goal (i.e. if a defender holds an offensive player and the offense is 8 yards away from the end zone, instead of being penalized the normal 10 yards they would be penalized 4). In theory, there can be an infinite amount of penalties to the point where penalties would move the ball micrometers or even shorter without the ball ever crossing the end zone.
There's probably a name for this phenomenon, but I can't think of it.
Zeno's paradox. Although in reality you'll run into problems when you need to move the ball 1/2 the Planck distance
Something like Zeno's paradox.
Assuming time travel exists: is it possible to alter the past?
If an event occurs, and you decide to travel back in time to change/prevent that event: It has no longer occurred in the way that caused you to want to change it; thus you never travel back to change it, and it does occur...
The Grandfather Paradox, I'm partial to that one as well.
I think that just shows that time travel doesn't exist.
Perhaps. Unless you consider multiverse theory: The idea that the act of traveling to the past splits the timeline into two realities. One containing the original (to your perspective) timeline with the event(s) that caused you to travel back, and a second where you've arrived in the past to alter those events and the results there of.
Not sure I believe it, but it's a theory none the less.
Or maybe it's only possible to travel forward in time. Closer to our current understanding of the universe.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I was playing with this recently. Suppose you are playing rock, paper, scissors with yourself from a few minutes into the future. Your future self “remembers” what you will play and so as long as you play normally, future self always wins. But change the rules a bit and play where future you goes first.
In a normal game, you should always win because you clearly see how future you played, but future you played to counter what future you remembers present you playing…
E.g. future you remembers playing paper, and so plays scissors. You see scissors and go go play rock, but that should be impossible because future you doesn’t remember playing rock.
The weird thing to me is not that the second scenario (where future you goes first fails) but that playing normally (both going at the same time) works. I think the paradox emerges when future knowledge is introduced to the past. In the normal game, future you does not expose future knowledge until the exact moment you play and cause that knowledge to exist in your present, but in the altered game, the introduction of future knowledge creates a feedback loop.
Of course the game isn’t needed. Simply seeing future you conveys the fact that you exist in the future. Should you, for example (and please don’t do this) see near future you then stab your arm with scissors, you will miss or be stopped because future you does not have a wounded arm.
I wonder what happens if future you’s arm is out of sight. would you be able to stab your arm then only for future you to then reveal a wounded arm?
Bootstrap paradox is my favourite time paradox. I loved Doctor Who's explanation.
load more comments
(3 replies)
The usual answer is yes, but he survives. Basically this isn't a paradox for something actually all powerful.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Newcomb’s paradox is my favourite. You have two boxes in front of you. Box B contains $1000. You can either pick box A only, or both boxes A and B. Sounds simple, right? No matter what's in box A, picking both will always net you $1000 more, so why would anyone pick only box A?
The twist is that there's a predictor in play. If the predictor predicted that you would pick only box A, it will have put $1,000,000 in box A. If it predicted that you would pick both, it will have left box A empty. You don't know how the predictor works, but you know that so far it has been 100% accurate with everyone else who took the test before you.
What do you pick?
I pick box A, then later pay the predictor his cut, which will work because he would have predicted I would do so.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
If you have a sword that can cut through anything, and a shield that can absorb any damage unharmed, what happens if you swing the sword at the shield?
load more comments
(5 replies)
I think Nietzsche already killed god decades ago. But not sure which one.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The god paradox can god create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it ? Also bootstrap paradox and grandfather paradox.