On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:34 PM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, May 10, 2013 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > No they are not exactly alike. A tiny change in a cuckoo clock causes a >>> > tiny change in the clock's performance, but a tiny change in the roulette >>> > wheel causes a HUGE change in the wheel's performance, >> >> >> > True, but chaotic systems are still explainable in terms of forces and >> > interactions, like any other Newtonian mechanism. > > > To explain how a chaotic system operates you'd have to describe the forces > acting on it in INFINITE detail, and a explanation that requires a infinite > (and not just astronomical) amount of verbiage isn't much of a explanation. > >> > Science ultimately suffers from the halting problem. We can never be >> > sure if it's hopeless or if there is a possibility of discovery ahead. > > > Yes. > >> >> > If I made a bet with you on the outcome of one double-slit experiment, >> > there would be a set of macro states where I won the bet and a set where I >> > lost it. I'm inclined to believe I would actually experience both of these >> > outcomes. > > > About a year ago on this list I made a modest proposal, it's a low tech way > to test the Many World's interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and as a bonus > it'll make you rich too. First you buy one Powerball lottery ticket, the > drawing of the winning number is on Saturday at 11pm, now make a simple > machine that will pull the trigger on a 44 magnum revolver aimed at your > head at exactly 11:00:01pm UNLESS yours is the winning ticket. Your > subjective experience can only be that at 11:00:01pm despite 80 million to > one odds stacked against you a miracle occurs and the gun does not go off > and you're rich beyond the dreams of avarice. Of course for every universe > you're rich in there are 80 million in which your friends watch your head > explode, but that's a minor point, your consciousness no longer exists in > any of those worlds so you never have to see the mess, it's their problem > not yours.
I used to participate in the mailing list years ago and this was a recurring theme -- quantum suicide. There was some anecdote that some guy actually tried it but fell in love minutes before going through with it, and that stopped him. I think Russell mentions this in his book. One of the problems is that the execution mechanism must have a failure rate lower than 1 in 80 million. This is no small engineering feat when it comes to reliably killing a human -- you may end up like a non-lottery winning vegetable in some of the universes. I even remember someone proposing civilisation-level quantum suicide: if CO2 doesn't go lower than X% by a certain date, a massive nuclear strike is automatically triggered. > Actually I like Many Worlds and think it may very well be right, but I > wouldn't bet my life on it. Good. Telmo. > John K Clark > > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
