Yes, I should have mentioned ASSA and RSSA as discussed on this list in the dark ages.
I don't buy QTI for quite a few reasons. A "model independent" objection I have is the following. If you accept QTI, then the information you have about your history will have to grow without limit (if not, then effectively you have a finite lifetime as you can only store a finite amount of information in a finite volume). Your identity must be preserved as your brain continues to expand to make room for all that informaton that must be stored. Now, I find it hard to believe that a superlarge brain the size of the galaxy would still be "me". :) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 03:24 AM Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 02:22:23AM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote: > > > > > First off, how is it that the MWI does not imply > > >quantum immortality? > > > > MWI is just quantum mechanics without the wavefunction collapse postulate. > > This then implies that after a measurement your wavefuntion will be in a > > superposition of the states corresponding to definite outcomes. But we > > cannot just consider suicide experiments and then say that just because > > branches of the wavefuntion exist in which I survive, I'll find myself there > > with 100% probability. The fact that probabilities are conserved follows > > from unitary time evolution. If a state evolves into a linear combination of > > states in which I'm dead and alive then the probabilities of all these > > states add up to 1. The probability of finding myself to be alive at all > > after the experiment is then less than the probability of me finding myself > > about to perform the suicide experiment. > > > > The probability of me finding myself to be alive after n suicide experiments > > decays exponentially with n. Therefore I should not expect to find myself > > having survived many suicide experiments. Note that contrary to what you > > often read in the popular accounts of the multiverse, the multiverse does > > not split when we make observations. The most natural state for the entire > > multiverse is just an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian. The energy can be taken > > to be zero, therefore the wavefunction of the multiverse satisfies the > > equation: > > > > One should also note that this is the ASSA position. The ASSA was > introduced by Jacques Mallah in his argument against quantum > immortality, and a number of participants in this list adhere to the > ASSA position. Its counterpart if the RSSA, which does imply quantum > immortality (provided that the no cul-de-sac conjecture holds), and > other list participants adhere to the RSSA. To date, no argument has > convincingly demonstrated which of the ASSA or RSSA should be > preferred, so it has become somewhat a matter of taste. There is some > discussion of this in my book "Theory of Nothing". > > Cheers > > -- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Mathematics > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
