On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:34 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> 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.
>> > 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
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.
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
> 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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.