Re: The prestige
Le 16-avr.-08, à 15:13, nichomachus (Steve) a écrit : The Prestige, with Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman, Michael Caine, Andy Serkis and David Bowie as Nikola Tesla... I also highly recommend this very entertaining movie that I saw last week. Unfortunately, Bruno, I don't see the connection between this film and the computationalist hypothesis. Hmmm I don't want to spoil the movie either ... Have you study the Universal Dovetailer Argument, or just the third key step? Note that from a purely strict logical point of view you don't need comp but a weakening of it. But the comp hyp makes something (in the movie) possible and even real, and even already real in a sense made explicit in the movie. Perhaps I will say more later, when more people (of the list) will have seen the movie. 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 [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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law
On 17/04/2008, Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You cannot experience death if you define death by the absolute end of your conscious experience. Since you can't be conscious if you're dead nor knowing it (which would require consciousness) by definition, death is not a first person experience (either if comp is true or not, this holds true for this definition of death). Another way to look at it is that you are dead almost everywhere in the multiverse: dead at the centre of the Earth, dead in the Andromeda Galaxy, dead in 5000 BC, etc. etc. However, you don't experience this being dead. You only experience those extremely rare parts of the multiverse where you are alive. -- Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The prestige
Le 16-avr.-08, à 18:02, nichomachus a écrit : On Apr 16, 4:54 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 16-avr.-08, à 03:24, Russell Standish a écrit : 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. Actually, I am not sure the ASSA makes sense once we take into account the distinction between first and third person point of view. Comp immortality is an almost trivial consequence that personal death cannot be a first person experience at all. Quantum immortality is most plausibly equivalent with comp immortality if the quantum level describes our correct comp substitution level. But this does not mean that we can know what shape the comp immortality can have, given that comp forbids us to know which machine we are or which computations bear us. Why is this the case? Whether Comp is true or not, it would seem that the direction of physical research and investigation is in the direction of discovering the presumed foundational TOE that accounts for everything we observe. Say, for example, that it were possible to create in a computer simulation an artificial universe that would evolve intelligent life forms by virtue of the physics of the artificial universe alone. Why, in principle, is it not possible for those intelligent beings to discover the fundamental rules that underlie their existence? They will not be able to discover any details of the architecture of the particular turing machine that is simulating their universe (even whether or not they are in fact being computed), but I don't see any a priori reason why they would not be able to discover their own basic physical laws. Max Tegmark has indicated that it may be possible to get some idea of which mathematical structure bears our own existence by approaching from the opposite direction. Though we may never know which one contains ourselves, it may be possible to derive a probability distribution describing the likelihood of our location in the ensemble. To go back to the comments you were making about the Prestige: If the subject of a quantum immortality experiment finds himself improbably alive, is he in some sense guilty of the murder of the other versions of himself? Or not, since those are merely third person experiences. See Quentin Anciaux's post. I will just comment your last paragraph. What constitutes a first person experience? It seems that you are defining it as an uninterrupted consciousness since comp implies the almost trivial consequence that personal death cannot be a first person experience at all. I am confused by exactly what is meant by first and third person experiences. OK. In the UDA (Universal Dovetailer Argument) I define a notion of first person and third person in relation with (classical) teleportation. The first person discourse is given by the content of a diary or memory of a teletransporter, and the third person discourse is the memory or diary content of
Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law
I would like to argue that in setting this experiment, energy is being expended to prevent the increase in entropy, albeit not in an obvious way. It is a trivial observation that systems may be devised that prevent increases in entropy by paying energy costs. One example is an ice cube in the freezer. In the case of this experiment, and assuming MWI, we are creating a scenario where the atomic decay is not possible from the experimenter's perspective. However, the experimenter is setting a system that includes the rifle and the geiger counter. Both these devices need energy to operate. Maybe it's just a convoluted version of the ice cube in the freezer? Best regards, Telmo Menezes. On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:18 AM, nichomachus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the description of the quantum immortality gedanken experiment, a physicist rigs an automatic rifle to a geiger counter to fire into him upon the detection of an atomic decay event from a bit of radioactive material. If the many worlds hypothesis is true, the self-awareness of the physicist will continue to find himself alive after any length of time in front of his gun, since there exist parallel worlds where the decay does not occur. On a microscopic scale this is analogous to the observing a reality in which the second law of thermodynamics does not hold. for example, since there is a non-zero probability that molecular interactions will result in a decrease in entropy in a particular sealed volume under observation, there exist histories in which this must be observed. This is never observed. Therefore the MWI is shown to be false. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law
It's not so much the input of energy, it's the production of more entropy where the energy is taken from. On 17/04/2008, Telmo Menezes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to argue that in setting this experiment, energy is being expended to prevent the increase in entropy, albeit not in an obvious way. It is a trivial observation that systems may be devised that prevent increases in entropy by paying energy costs. One example is an ice cube in the freezer. In the case of this experiment, and assuming MWI, we are creating a scenario where the atomic decay is not possible from the experimenter's perspective. However, the experimenter is setting a system that includes the rifle and the geiger counter. Both these devices need energy to operate. Maybe it's just a convoluted version of the ice cube in the freezer? Best regards, Telmo Menezes. On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:18 AM, nichomachus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the description of the quantum immortality gedanken experiment, a physicist rigs an automatic rifle to a geiger counter to fire into him upon the detection of an atomic decay event from a bit of radioactive material. If the many worlds hypothesis is true, the self-awareness of the physicist will continue to find himself alive after any length of time in front of his gun, since there exist parallel worlds where the decay does not occur. On a microscopic scale this is analogous to the observing a reality in which the second law of thermodynamics does not hold. for example, since there is a non-zero probability that molecular interactions will result in a decrease in entropy in a particular sealed volume under observation, there exist histories in which this must be observed. This is never observed. Therefore the MWI is shown to be false. -- They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist- Last words of Gen. John Sedgwick, spoken as he looked out over the parapet at enemy lines during the Battle of Spotsylvania in 1864. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law
Yes, you're right. Still I think my argument holds. The production of the rifle, bullet and geiger counter system plus the geiger counter operation should produce more than enough entropy to compensate for the atom not decaying. On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Michael Rosefield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not so much the input of energy, it's the production of more entropy where the energy is taken from. On 17/04/2008, Telmo Menezes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to argue that in setting this experiment, energy is being expended to prevent the increase in entropy, albeit not in an obvious way. It is a trivial observation that systems may be devised that prevent increases in entropy by paying energy costs. One example is an ice cube in the freezer. In the case of this experiment, and assuming MWI, we are creating a scenario where the atomic decay is not possible from the experimenter's perspective. However, the experimenter is setting a system that includes the rifle and the geiger counter. Both these devices need energy to operate. Maybe it's just a convoluted version of the ice cube in the freezer? Best regards, Telmo Menezes. On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:18 AM, nichomachus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the description of the quantum immortality gedanken experiment, a physicist rigs an automatic rifle to a geiger counter to fire into him upon the detection of an atomic decay event from a bit of radioactive material. If the many worlds hypothesis is true, the self-awareness of the physicist will continue to find himself alive after any length of time in front of his gun, since there exist parallel worlds where the decay does not occur. On a microscopic scale this is analogous to the observing a reality in which the second law of thermodynamics does not hold. for example, since there is a non-zero probability that molecular interactions will result in a decrease in entropy in a particular sealed volume under observation, there exist histories in which this must be observed. This is never observed. Therefore the MWI is shown to be false. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law
Are you saying that the second law is verified in each of all branches of the (quantum) multiverse? I would say the second law is statistical, and is verified in most branches. In the MWI applied to quantum field it seems to me that there can be branches with an arbitrarily high number of photon creation without annihilation, and this for each period of time. Those branches do violate the second law for that period of time, although in most of branches, such violation are quite ephemera. The probability to find ourself in such branch, a priori, is very little, but the probability to *remain* in such a branch is exponentially more negligible, if I can say. And that is what counts, if you accept the RSSA. (Then if comp is true, my point is that even schroedinger equation itself has to come from a statistical phenomenon, albeit pertaining on number (or abstract machines) relations: Everett is correct but don't push his methodology sufficiently far). Isn't it? Bruno Le 17-avr.-08, à 15:02, Telmo Menezes a écrit : Yes, you're right. Still I think my argument holds. The production of the rifle, bullet and geiger counter system plus the geiger counter operation should produce more than enough entropy to compensate for the atom not decaying. On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Michael Rosefield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not so much the input of energy, it's the production of more entropy where the energy is taken from. On 17/04/2008, Telmo Menezes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to argue that in setting this experiment, energy is being expended to prevent the increase in entropy, albeit not in an obvious way. It is a trivial observation that systems may be devised that prevent increases in entropy by paying energy costs. One example is an ice cube in the freezer. In the case of this experiment, and assuming MWI, we are creating a scenario where the atomic decay is not possible from the experimenter's perspective. However, the experimenter is setting a system that includes the rifle and the geiger counter. Both these devices need energy to operate. Maybe it's just a convoluted version of the ice cube in the freezer? Best regards, Telmo Menezes. On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:18 AM, nichomachus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the description of the quantum immortality gedanken experiment, a physicist rigs an automatic rifle to a geiger counter to fire into him upon the detection of an atomic decay event from a bit of radioactive material. If the many worlds hypothesis is true, the self-awareness of the physicist will continue to find himself alive after any length of time in front of his gun, since there exist parallel worlds where the decay does not occur. On a microscopic scale this is analogous to the observing a reality in which the second law of thermodynamics does not hold. for example, since there is a non-zero probability that molecular interactions will result in a decrease in entropy in a particular sealed volume under observation, there exist histories in which this must be observed. This is never observed. Therefore the MWI is shown to be false. 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 [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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law
Bruno, ashamed, because I decided many times not to barge into topics I do not understand and now I misuse your (and the list's) patience again: you use statistical. - verified in MOST branches. I think my view is not too far away: statistical in my dictionary means a choice-set of cases selected for observation and in such selection we COUNT the matching and non-matching occurrences. The conclusions are strictly group-restricted. Choose different boundaries (maybe include domains we don't even know of) and the 'statistical' result may be different. Accordingly I would not say Those branches do violate the second law... I would rather say the II law is not valid (identified?) in those branches. For that period of time? I consider the MWI a one-plane extract of MW and in my 'narrative' (i don't use 'theory' for unsubstantiatable ideas, even if certain math can justify it) the multitude of universes is not in any qualitative bound. Diversity exceeds our human (scientific?) fantasy. Time, however, is a coordinate of THIS universe and I have no idea what kind of and what at all time may reign in other, totally different universes. Our physics is just our physics. I honor Everett as a pioneer and allow pioneers to be overstepped. (Another of my heresy: * probability * I consider as starting similarly to the above statistical formulation of mine, with an added superstition that the next (not necessarily the following one) will be adjusted to the 'statistically found' and chosen variant.). I like your phrasing: ...**IF** comp is true. Best regards John Mikes On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you saying that the second law is verified in each of all branches of the (quantum) multiverse? I would say the second law is statistical, and is verified in most branches. In the MWI applied to quantum field it seems to me that there can be branches with an arbitrarily high number of photon creation without annihilation, and this for each period of time. Those branches do violate the second law for that period of time, although in most of branches, such violation are quite ephemera. The probability to find ourself in such branch, a priori, is very little, but the probability to *remain* in such a branch is exponentially more negligible, if I can say. And that is what counts, if you accept the RSSA. (Then if comp is true, my point is that even schroedinger equation itself has to come from a statistical phenomenon, albeit pertaining on number (or abstract machines) relations: Everett is correct but don't push his methodology sufficiently far). Isn't it? Bruno Le 17-avr.-08, à 15:02, Telmo Menezes a écrit : Yes, you're right. Still I think my argument holds. The production of the rifle, bullet and geiger counter system plus the geiger counter operation should produce more than enough entropy to compensate for the atom not decaying. On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Michael Rosefield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not so much the input of energy, it's the production of more entropy where the energy is taken from. On 17/04/2008, Telmo Menezes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to argue that in setting this experiment, energy is being expended to prevent the increase in entropy, albeit not in an obvious way. It is a trivial observation that systems may be devised that prevent increases in entropy by paying energy costs. One example is an ice cube in the freezer. In the case of this experiment, and assuming MWI, we are creating a scenario where the atomic decay is not possible from the experimenter's perspective. However, the experimenter is setting a system that includes the rifle and the geiger counter. Both these devices need energy to operate. Maybe it's just a convoluted version of the ice cube in the freezer? Best regards, Telmo Menezes. On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:18 AM, nichomachus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the description of the quantum immortality gedanken experiment, a physicist rigs an automatic rifle to a geiger counter to fire into him upon the detection of an atomic decay event from a bit of radioactive material. If the many worlds hypothesis is true, the self-awareness of the physicist will continue to find himself alive after any length of time in front of his gun, since there exist parallel worlds where the decay does not occur. On a microscopic scale this is analogous to the observing a reality in which the second law of thermodynamics does not hold. for example, since there is a non-zero probability that molecular interactions will result in a decrease in entropy in a particular sealed volume under observation, there exist histories in which this must be observed. This is never observed. Therefore the MWI is shown to be false. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Greg Egan's Permutation City was: The prestige
I read the Wikipedia of The prestige (too lazy to watch the movie ;-) and, yes, it's classical comp stuff *grin* What I would like to recommend to everybody on the list is Greg Egan's book Permutation City I can recommend everything by Egan - hard, no nonsense, mathematically informed SciFi (his page is here: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/ he has good applets on his page also, check them out) In Permutation City, he explores personality duplication, platonic computation, dust theory of consciousness etc - an excellent, breathtaking book. Will transform your views, even if you have been thinking about these things for a long time. Cheers, Günther Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 16-avr.-08, à 15:13, nichomachus (Steve) a écrit : The Prestige, with Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman, Michael Caine, Andy Serkis and David Bowie as Nikola Tesla... I also highly recommend this very entertaining movie that I saw last week. Unfortunately, Bruno, I don't see the connection between this film and the computationalist hypothesis. Hmmm I don't want to spoil the movie either ... Have you study the Universal Dovetailer Argument, or just the third key step? Note that from a purely strict logical point of view you don't need comp but a weakening of it. But the comp hyp makes something (in the movie) possible and even real, and even already real in a sense made explicit in the movie. Perhaps I will say more later, when more people (of the list) will have seen the movie. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- Günther Greindl Department of Philosophy of Science University of Vienna [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/ Blog: http://dao.complexitystudies.org/ Site: http://www.complexitystudies.org --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law
Hi, David Deutsch argues in Fabric of Reality that only the Multiverse conserves quantity (not single branches). The rest is probabilistic stuff (see Bruno's post) Cheers, Günther Telmo Menezes wrote: Yes, you're right. Still I think my argument holds. The production of the rifle, bullet and geiger counter system plus the geiger counter operation should produce more than enough entropy to compensate for the atom not decaying. On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Michael Rosefield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not so much the input of energy, it's the production of more entropy where the energy is taken from. On 17/04/2008, Telmo Menezes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to argue that in setting this experiment, energy is being expended to prevent the increase in entropy, albeit not in an obvious way. It is a trivial observation that systems may be devised that prevent increases in entropy by paying energy costs. One example is an ice cube in the freezer. In the case of this experiment, and assuming MWI, we are creating a scenario where the atomic decay is not possible from the experimenter's perspective. However, the experimenter is setting a system that includes the rifle and the geiger counter. Both these devices need energy to operate. Maybe it's just a convoluted version of the ice cube in the freezer? Best regards, Telmo Menezes. On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:18 AM, nichomachus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the description of the quantum immortality gedanken experiment, a physicist rigs an automatic rifle to a geiger counter to fire into him upon the detection of an atomic decay event from a bit of radioactive material. If the many worlds hypothesis is true, the self-awareness of the physicist will continue to find himself alive after any length of time in front of his gun, since there exist parallel worlds where the decay does not occur. On a microscopic scale this is analogous to the observing a reality in which the second law of thermodynamics does not hold. for example, since there is a non-zero probability that molecular interactions will result in a decrease in entropy in a particular sealed volume under observation, there exist histories in which this must be observed. This is never observed. Therefore the MWI is shown to be false. -- Günther Greindl Department of Philosophy of Science University of Vienna [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/ Blog: http://dao.complexitystudies.org/ Site: http://www.complexitystudies.org --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you saying that the second law is verified in each of all branches of the (quantum) multiverse? I'm not saying that. I would say the second law is statistical, and is verified in most branches. In the MWI applied to quantum field it seems to me that there can be branches with an arbitrarily high number of photon creation without annihilation, and this for each period of time. Yes, I would tend to agree with that, although I can't say I'm 100% convinced. Anyway I'm a relative newcomer to this list so I don't feel I have an informed opinion yet. Need to catch up with all the arguments. Also have a thesis to finish, which tends to get in the way :) I'm just arguing that the experiment with the rifle and the geiger counter does not imply any second law anomaly. Yes, you are forcing your consciousness to move to states where the atom never decays, but if you consider the larger system, entropy is increasing as normal because of the preparation and maintenance of the apparatus needed for the experiment. Do you think this makes sense? Telmo Menezes. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law
Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you saying that the second law is verified in each of all branches of the (quantum) multiverse? I'm not saying that. I would say the second law is statistical, and is verified in most branches. In the MWI applied to quantum field it seems to me that there can be branches with an arbitrarily high number of photon creation without annihilation, and this for each period of time. I'm not sure what source of photon creation you have in mind, but QFT doesn't allow violation of energy conservation. Yes, I would tend to agree with that, although I can't say I'm 100% convinced. Anyway I'm a relative newcomer to this list so I don't feel I have an informed opinion yet. Need to catch up with all the arguments. Also have a thesis to finish, which tends to get in the way :) I'm just arguing that the experiment with the rifle and the geiger counter does not imply any second law anomaly. Yes, you are forcing your consciousness to move to states where the atom never decays, but if you consider the larger system, entropy is increasing as normal because of the preparation and maintenance of the apparatus needed for the experiment. Do you think this makes sense? Telmo Menezes. The idea of the multiverse derives from quantum mechanics, e.g. the Everett no-collapse interpretation. But in that model the (microscopic) entropy never increases (or decreases), because QM evolution is unitary. It is only the coarse-grained entropy, i.e. restricted to this branch, that increases. Certainly within this branch you are correct that the entropy increase due to firing a gun is very much greater than the decrease due to an atom not decaying. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law
To pull a fatuous idea from where the sun doth not shine, what if energy is merely moving 'between universes'; it is conserved just because of statistical balance. On 17/04/2008, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure what source of photon creation you have in mind, but QFT doesn't allow violation of energy conservation. -- They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist- Last words of Gen. John Sedgwick, spoken as he looked out over the parapet at enemy lines during the Battle of Spotsylvania in 1864. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law
It's conserved because we require that the Hamiltonian not be explicitly time dependent (we want our laws to apply equally at all times); that and Noether's theorem imply conservation of 4-momentum. Brent Meeker Michael Rosefield wrote: To pull a fatuous idea from where the sun doth not shine, what if energy is merely moving 'between universes'; it is conserved just because of statistical balance. On 17/04/2008, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure what source of photon creation you have in mind, but QFT doesn't allow violation of energy conservation. -- They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist- Last words of Gen. John Sedgwick, spoken as he looked out over the parapet at enemy lines during the Battle of Spotsylvania in 1864. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 06:45:59PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote: I'm just arguing that the experiment with the rifle and the geiger counter does not imply any second law anomaly. Yes, you are forcing your consciousness to move to states where the atom never decays, but if you consider the larger system, entropy is increasing as normal because of the preparation and maintenance of the apparatus needed for the experiment. Do you think this makes sense? Telmo Menezes. I think this is an intriguing idea, but I can't say yet whether it is right. Let me paraphrase, as some of the discussion on this thread has been barking up the wrong trees. Whilst the second law holds in a first person statistical sense (as pointed out by a number of people), entropy is in fact conserved in a third person sense (conservation of probability, unitarity of evolution etc.) What Telmo is suggesting is a little different. He is saying that the quantum suicider will still see entropy increasing in er universe, as the atom and rifle is not an isolated system, and the thermodynamic costs of maintaining the experimental aparatus cause entropy to be raised elsewhere in the suicider's universe. This strikes me as similar to Slizard's analysis of the Maxwell daemon, and could probably be handled the same way. Unfortunately I don't have the time now to refresh my memory of how these arguments work - but perhaps Brent can do the analysis? Cheers -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
