On Apr 14, 9:21 pm, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Further to this, to say that the 2nd law is falsified, we'd have to
> have circumstances where the less likely outcome ocurred more
> frequently than the more often. (ie entropy decreases more often than
> it increases). But this begs the question of what we mean by
> likelihood of outcome, if not related to frequency of occurrence.

Hi, Russell,

Surely the framework of the Many Worlds interpretation would say that
the likelyhood of measuring a quantum observable in state A rather
than B reflects the number of histories in which the observable is
measured as being in state A divided by number of histories in which
either is seen. Molecules in a gas chamber may not be the best
example, as I am personally unclear as to whether the macroscopic
behavior of the aggregate is reduceable to probabilistic quantum
events. But the point remains that it is impossible to adhere to the
MWI without also affirming not only the existence of histories in
which unlikely events happen, but also ones in which *only* unlikely
events happen. This includes universes where the cat never dies,
uranium never decays, and (perhaps) the second law does not hold. Is
it right to think that this is unproblematic? Or perhaps we should
regard the Many Worlds formalism as merely an instrumentalistic
interpretation, similar to how Bohr and Heisenberg regarded their
Copenhagen interpretation, rather than granting full ontological
significance to alternate possible histories.

> In any case, QTI does not change the observed outcome of likely versus
> unlikely events, it just changes the set of possible outcome on which
> to apply the second law.

What does QTI stand for?

So our suicidal physicist would have enabled himself to observe the
extremely scenario of seeing radioactive elements never decay, by
killing himself in all histories where decay ocurred and thereby
selecting only the ones where it did not take place to continue his
awareness in.Of course, those branches of his identity would still
have observed the same outcomes even if the gun was unloaded, so he
doesn't really have to kill himself in nearly all universes in order
to get to see it.

But if I accept the above as true, then I must also accept that there
are histories that have been experienced in which no atom of an
unstable element has decayed since Jan. 1, 1900. (or any date you

When Thomas Young performed his double slit experiment, were there any
versions of himself that did not observe an interference pattern?

Why not?

I appreciate the replies as I am more questions than answers at this
point on these topics.

> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:30:05AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > On 15/04/2008, Michael Rosefield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > No, it just means no-one's put enough stress on the 2nd Law yet :)
> > > Besides, it's not so much a law as a guideline. Well, a strong statistical
> > > tendency....
> > As Michael pointed out, the 2nd law is a statistical law, which says
> > that a decrease in entropy is unlikely, not impossible.. QTI predicts
> > that you will survive the most probable way possible. This means it is
> > unlikely that you will find yourself in a world where you choose to
> > attempt quantum suicide experiments in the first place, but if you do
> > the least improbable way of surviving is very improbable in absolute
> > terms, but not impossible.
> > --
> > Stathis Papaioannou
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-
> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Mathematics                              
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­--
>  Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to