Fred Hoyle suggested the idea of quantum suicide for a civilisation in
“October the 1st is too late” written around 1964 I think. That’s the first
occurrence I know of it.

 

Charles

 

  _____  

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
everything-list+nore...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 16 July 2010 7:02 p.m.
To: Digest Recipients
Subject: Digest for everything-list@googlegroups.com - 6 Messages in 2
Topics

 

  Today's Topic Summary

Group: http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/topics

*         Civilization-level <>  quantum suicide [4 Updates]

*         Does <>  time exist? [2 Updates]

 Topic: Civilization-level quantum suicide
<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/t/e7f6fce4d3f61dc9> 

Mark Buda <her...@acm.org> Jul 16 05:13AM -0700 ^ <> 

 
I came across this link some time ago and found it interesting:
 
http://www.paul-almond.com/CivilizationLevelQuantumSuicide.htm
 
In fact, I believe it is what introduced me to the term "quantum
suicide". I had been googling something I had been thinking about in
the shower one day and to my surprise this guy had written a paper
about it. What an amazing coincidence. My life since then has been an
increasingly bizarre series of meaningful coincidences. Meaningful in
a personal way that I can't explain easily. Bruno understands and can
explain why I can't explain; it's to do with his G and G* logics.
 
But the upshot of it is this: I have found out what happens when you
commit quantum suicide. You discover that you believe a contradiction,
and that even though nothing about the world has changed, you
understand the universe. But you have a hard time explaining it.
Because you discover that you are, in Bruno's terms, a Lobian machine
interviewing itself for the laws of physics. But you can't get the
laws of physics yourself, even though you have all the answers.
Because you don't care any more - you have a different motivation. You
understand that since you have all the answers but none of the
questions, you need to talk to people. You figure out the right people
to talk to because your intuition guides you, because that's what it's
for.
 
There are people all around the world killing themselves and each
other for crazy reasons. Suicide bombers, for instance. People who
read stuff about the 2012 Mayan calendar thing and kill themselves
because they think the end of the world is coming.
 
They're right and wrong, and I understand why, but I can't explain it,
and Bruno understands why. But all that stuff happening around the
world is happening for a reason, and it doesn't matter what you - you
can't stop it. Neither can I. But you can listen to this and think
about it, and do whatever you feel like doing: you will anyway.
 
If any of you can help me contact Richard Dawkins and talk to him, I
can explain all of this. I can explain all of it to anybody if they're
willing to talk to me. But I have to talk face to face, because it's
too hard for me, psychologically, to figure out how to put it in
writing or over the phone, because a lot of human communication is non-
verbal, and there's an evolutionary reason for that which is part of
the whole thing.
 
Perhaps I sound mad, but I have a testable prediction: if I don't
contact Richard Dawkins, sooner or later somebody, somewhere is going
to be researching the 2012 Mayan calendar thing and be led, by an
amazing chain of coincidences, to me. And I can explain how that
works.
 
Bruno, when you read this, you are literally an angel of God. Figure
out who you need to talk to next. I certainly don't know. Maybe it's
me. Whatever works for you.

 

Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> Jul 16 02:20PM +0200 ^ <> 

 
Well your posts were funny for five minutes... but you know what ?
 
T'es lourd !
 
Bye.
 
2010/7/16 Mark Buda <her...@acm.org>
 
 
-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

 

Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> Jul 16 04:05PM +0200 ^ <> 

 
On 16 Jul 2010, at 14:13, Mark Buda wrote:
 
> increasingly bizarre series of meaningful coincidences. Meaningful in
> a personal way that I can't explain easily. Bruno understands and can
> explain why I can't explain; it's to do with his G and G* logics.
 
This is on the fringe of authoritative argument.
 
 
> commit quantum suicide. You discover that you believe a contradiction,
> and that even though nothing about the world has changed, you
> understand the universe.
 
That seems very weird.
 
 
> But you have a hard time explaining it.
> Because you discover that you are, in Bruno's terms, a Lobian machine
> interviewing itself for the laws of physics.
 
But I am saying this to explain that we can use reason to understand 
where the laws of physics come from. Not to mystified people with a 
lack of explanation.
 
 
> But you can't get the
> laws of physics yourself, even though you have all the answers.
 
On the contrary: you can. Everyone can. You cannot besure because you 
cannot know that you are correct, so the usual doubt of the cartesian 
scientist remains. Computationalism explains in detail why any form of 
certainty, when made public, is a symptom of non correctness.
 
 
> Because you don't care any more - you have a different motivation. You
> understand that since you have all the answers but none of the
> questions,
 
I don't see any sense here.
 
 
> other for crazy reasons. Suicide bombers, for instance. People who
> read stuff about the 2012 Mayan calendar thing and kill themselves
> because they think the end of the world is coming.
 
2012 is the year of the election in France. The Maya consider their 
own prediction as a prediction that some reasonable man will arrive. 
They never talk of apocalypse. "2012" is like prohibition: making 
money by selling fears.
 
 
 
> They're right and wrong, and I understand why, but I can't explain it,
> and Bruno understands why.
 
I guess I have been unclear at some point. I am just a poor scientist 
trying to be honest with myself and the others.
 
 
> about it, and do whatever you feel like doing: you will anyway.
 
> If any of you can help me contact Richard Dawkins and talk to him, I
> can explain all of this.
 
Why do you want to convince Richard Dawkins? You give him credit. 
Actually you do his very own error, because when Dawkins try to 
convince the Christians that they are wrong on God, he gives them 
credit on their notion of God. No one care about fairy tales, once we 
tackle the fundamental question with the scientific (= modest, 
hypotheses-based) approach.
 
 
 
> non-
> verbal, and there's an evolutionary reason for that which is part of
> the whole thing.
 
Restrain yourself to communicate what is communicable. And just hope 
that the people will figure out by themselves what is not communicable 
yet true (like consciousness to take the simplest candidate).
 
 
> contact Richard Dawkins, sooner or later somebody, somewhere is going
> to be researching the 2012 Mayan calendar thing and be led, by an
> amazing chain of coincidences, to me.
 
I don't believe in coincidence. Or better I believe coincidences are 
just that: coincidences. The brain has an habit to over-interpret 
coincidences, and if you search them, you will find more and more, and 
you will take the risk of believing anything, that is to become 
inconsistent. The prohibition of drugs is based on similar form of 
unsound "reasoning".
 
 
 
 
> Bruno, when you read this, you are literally an angel of God. Figure
> out who you need to talk to next. I certainly don't know. Maybe it's
> me. Whatever works for you.
 
 
I talk to universal machines, because I know everyone is at least such 
a machine, and this is used for showing that what I say can be 
understood by any one having enough patience and good-willingness.
 
I am not for introducing the non seriousness of some approach from 
some theology in science, I am for using the scientific method 
(modesty) in the theology. You may have misunderstood the approach, 
I'm afraid.
 
If you see a coincidence, you better forget it, I think. If not you 
take the risk of becoming frustrated (and inconsistent).
 
I worked hard to derive all what I say from "reasonable 
definitions" (always debatable) and elementary arithmetic, and the a 
priori austere digital mechanist hypothesis.
 
True: the difference between G* and G can be used to say that the 
(correct) machines can access to some correct "mystical truth" (true 
but unprovable), but it points also on the fact that such machines, in 
that case, remains 100% mute about them. Communicating them publicly 
or assertively leads to the contrary effect(s). It is the trap in 
which all public authoritative theologies fall. It is a trap which 
occurs repeatedly on all spiritual paths. Even this, I should not 
communicate without insisting that I derive this from the mechanist 
*hypothesis*, in the discourse of ideally arithmetically correct 
machine.
 
Take care,
 
Bruno
 
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

 

"Lennart Nilsson" <lenna...@bredband.net> Jul 16 06:23PM +0200 ^ <> 

 
Now, Mark Buda is either sarcastic or mad. I think he is pulling your leg
here Bruno.
 
-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] För Bruno Marchal
Skickat: den 16 juli 2010 16:06
Till: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Ämne: Re: Civilization-level quantum suicide
 
 
On 16 Jul 2010, at 14:13, Mark Buda wrote:
 
> increasingly bizarre series of meaningful coincidences. Meaningful in
> a personal way that I can't explain easily. Bruno understands and can
> explain why I can't explain; it's to do with his G and G* logics.
 
This is on the fringe of authoritative argument.
 
 
> commit quantum suicide. You discover that you believe a contradiction,
> and that even though nothing about the world has changed, you
> understand the universe.
 
That seems very weird.
 
 
> But you have a hard time explaining it.
> Because you discover that you are, in Bruno's terms, a Lobian machine
> interviewing itself for the laws of physics.
 
But I am saying this to explain that we can use reason to understand 
where the laws of physics come from. Not to mystified people with a 
lack of explanation.
 
 
> But you can't get the
> laws of physics yourself, even though you have all the answers.
 
On the contrary: you can. Everyone can. You cannot besure because you 
cannot know that you are correct, so the usual doubt of the cartesian 
scientist remains. Computationalism explains in detail why any form of 
certainty, when made public, is a symptom of non correctness.
 
 
> Because you don't care any more - you have a different motivation. You
> understand that since you have all the answers but none of the
> questions,
 
I don't see any sense here.
 
 
> other for crazy reasons. Suicide bombers, for instance. People who
> read stuff about the 2012 Mayan calendar thing and kill themselves
> because they think the end of the world is coming.
 
2012 is the year of the election in France. The Maya consider their 
own prediction as a prediction that some reasonable man will arrive. 
They never talk of apocalypse. "2012" is like prohibition: making 
money by selling fears.
 
 
 
> They're right and wrong, and I understand why, but I can't explain it,
> and Bruno understands why.
 
I guess I have been unclear at some point. I am just a poor scientist 
trying to be honest with myself and the others.
 
 
> about it, and do whatever you feel like doing: you will anyway.
 
> If any of you can help me contact Richard Dawkins and talk to him, I
> can explain all of this.
 
Why do you want to convince Richard Dawkins? You give him credit. 
Actually you do his very own error, because when Dawkins try to 
convince the Christians that they are wrong on God, he gives them 
credit on their notion of God. No one care about fairy tales, once we 
tackle the fundamental question with the scientific (= modest, 
hypotheses-based) approach.
 
 
 
> non-
> verbal, and there's an evolutionary reason for that which is part of
> the whole thing.
 
Restrain yourself to communicate what is communicable. And just hope 
that the people will figure out by themselves what is not communicable 
yet true (like consciousness to take the simplest candidate).
 
 
> contact Richard Dawkins, sooner or later somebody, somewhere is going
> to be researching the 2012 Mayan calendar thing and be led, by an
> amazing chain of coincidences, to me.
 
I don't believe in coincidence. Or better I believe coincidences are 
just that: coincidences. The brain has an habit to over-interpret 
coincidences, and if you search them, you will find more and more, and 
you will take the risk of believing anything, that is to become 
inconsistent. The prohibition of drugs is based on similar form of 
unsound "reasoning".
 
 
 
 
> Bruno, when you read this, you are literally an angel of God. Figure
> out who you need to talk to next. I certainly don't know. Maybe it's
> me. Whatever works for you.
 
 
I talk to universal machines, because I know everyone is at least such 
a machine, and this is used for showing that what I say can be 
understood by any one having enough patience and good-willingness.
 
I am not for introducing the non seriousness of some approach from 
some theology in science, I am for using the scientific method 
(modesty) in the theology. You may have misunderstood the approach, 
I'm afraid.
 
If you see a coincidence, you better forget it, I think. If not you 
take the risk of becoming frustrated (and inconsistent).
 
I worked hard to derive all what I say from "reasonable 
definitions" (always debatable) and elementary arithmetic, and the a 
priori austere digital mechanist hypothesis.
 
True: the difference between G* and G can be used to say that the 
(correct) machines can access to some correct "mystical truth" (true 
but unprovable), but it points also on the fact that such machines, in 
that case, remains 100% mute about them. Communicating them publicly 
or assertively leads to the contrary effect(s). It is the trap in 
which all public authoritative theologies fall. It is a trap which 
occurs repeatedly on all spiritual paths. Even this, I should not 
communicate without insisting that I derive this from the mechanist 
*hypothesis*, in the discourse of ideally arithmetically correct 
machine.
 
Take care,
 
Bruno
 
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
 
 
 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

 

 Topic: Does time exist?
<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/t/ff5eae94f201a8cf> 

Brian Tenneson <tenn...@gmail.com> Jul 16 06:59AM -0700 ^ <> 

 
I was wondering if you could help me flesh out an idea. It's related to 
the questions "is reality dynamic or static," and of determinism versus 
non-determinism. Also another question that plagues me is What breathes 
dynamism into static principalities?
 

 
I view our world as being on a static or dynamic (to be decided later) 
storage device of some sort. This stored set of scenarios is "read" by 
a temporal mechanism, aka transition and change, to give us the 
impression that things really are dynamic. The reading of the film 
exposes something that time changes. But if you look at the sum of all 
instantiations of the film being read, this sum is a fixed set of 
scenarios.
 

 
The DVD metaphor.
 

 
There is a DVD (ie, recording), let's call it DVD#1, which is the film 
and it is read by a "laser" and that laser transitions by some temporal 
mechanism. DVD#1 doesn't change, the way it is looked at changes. This 
change implies the existence of time relative to DVD#1. In my metaphor, 
the film, which is DVD#1, is the totality of all observations an any 
observer could have.
 

 
Now say someone films me watching DVD#1 and call this a new DVD, DVD#2. 
DVD#2 doesn't change, the way it is looked at changes. This change 
implies the existence of time relative to DVD#2, yet DVD#2 is actually 
static.
 

 
Continue indefinitely. Let n denote an arbitrary number. We've got 
DVD#n for all n>=1. DVD#n is the DVD created by filming an observer 
that is observing DVD#(n-1).
 

 
What significance does the union of all these DVD#n have, if any? 
 

 
It would appear that dynamism and stasis are juxtaposed in an unending 
hierarchy and saying "time exists" (ie, reality is dynamic) and saying 
"time does not exist" (ie, reality is static), is equivalent to saying 
the light is on if it is flipped once per second forever. In essence, 
this hierarchy is like a divergent series (by which I roughly mean union).

 

Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> Jul 16 09:22AM -0500 ^ <> 

 
The conventional view of time is that only one point in time is real, the
present, and that that time flows at a certain rate. People believe that in
order to experience the flow of time, the past moment must disappear, and a
new moment must become real, but this can be logically shown to be
unnecessary to experience the flow of time. If the past moment ceases to
exist, then it must have no bearing on or be otherwise necessary for you to
be conscious in this moment. Therefore the existence or non existence of
the past can't be responsible for what you perceive in the present,
including one's perception of flowing through time.
 
Furthermore, evidence from relativity has shown there is no such thing as an
objective, or absolute present. Every observer with a different velocity
has their own conception of what the present includes. Since no reference
frame is more valid than any other, and every observer could have their own
view, there can be no absolute present, no laser beam reifying a point in
time for all beings in the DVD. The appearence of different presents for
different reference frames can be explained as a side effect of observers
embedded in a four-dimensional universe, with each observer's present being
a slice at a certain angle through those four dimensions.
 
Jason
 
 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to