Re: Quantum accident survivor

2003-10-31 Thread scerir
David wrote: Furthermore if I witness a crash where someone dies can I assume that the victim will survive in their own world so far as at least one quantum branch of survivability seems possible? David Kwinter In case, after the crash, there is somebody who is really dying (and who does

Re: Quantum accident survivor

2003-10-31 Thread scerir
- Measure on the dying subject, at the 'right' moment, that is to say when he is 'really' dying, the projection operator on the state 'psi'; Of course this state 'psi' would be a superposition of the kind 1/sqrt2 (|live + |dead) or, better, 1/sqrt2 (|live + exp(i phase)|dead)

JOINING post

2003-10-31 Thread Eric Cavalcanti
Hi, My name is Eric Cavalcanti, and I am joining this list. As was solicited in the website, I am sending this Joining post with details of my background. I am a physicist, recently received my MSc in atomic physics. I have been participating in the Fabric of Reality list for some time, so I

Re: Quantum accident survivor

2003-10-31 Thread Bruno Marchal
At 02:26 31/10/03 +, Matt King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, this is Quantum Immortality in a nutshell. If the MWI is correct, it is impossible to die from a subjective point of view. Hooray! Hooray? What if you are suffering? I agree with you that with MWI (or just comp btw) it is hard

Re: a possible paradox

2003-10-31 Thread Federico Marulli
Matt King wrote: ...However, the laws of probability themselves are not physical but mathematical in origin. Even in a 'magical' universe, you would still have the same basic laws of probability (Gaussian distributions and the like) as this is just math, and math is truly universal. For

RE: a possible paradox

2003-10-31 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Surely you can't be serious! Are you saying that every letter of every word of every email in your institution is scrutinised by your IT department? I know this has nothing to do with the business of the everything list, but good grief, this kind of surveillance Hitler and Stalin could only

re: quantum accident survivor

2003-10-31 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Yes indeed! You've just rediscovered the quantum theory of immortality, and this was one of the central ideas that gave rise to this list. Look up Max Tegmark quantum suicide experiment in the list archives or using a web search engine. Actually, a basic version of this idea also occurred to

Re: Quantum accident survivor

2003-10-31 Thread Matt King
Hello Hal, Hal Finney wrote: You can indeed choose to believe that as long as any version of yourself continues in any universe, then you will consider yourself to still be alive. You could also choose the contrary, that if the total measure (ie. probability) of your survival is extremely

Re: Quantum accident survivor

2003-10-31 Thread Matt King
Hi Benjamin, Benjamin Udell wrote: Assume I survive a car/plane crash which we assume could have many different quantum outcomes including me (dead || alive) Since I was the same person (entire life history) up until the crash/quantum 'branch' - then can't I assume that since there was at least

Re: a possible paradox

2003-10-31 Thread Bruno Marchal
At 17:03 30/10/03 +0100, scerir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Principles of World Theory say, more or less, that: - a proposition (whatever) is *necessary* iff it is true in all worlds; - a proposition (whatever) is *possible* iff there is some world in which it is true; - there is only one *actual*

Re: a possible paradox

2003-10-31 Thread Joao Leao
These models with topological non-local features may not actually have outsides by the same token that the Mobius band only has one side, get it? Max Tegmark is a nice kid but he does not seem to deal very well with his own finitude ! I am sure he is not the only one... -Joao Leao Norman

Re: Quantum accident survivor

2003-10-31 Thread Joao Leao
scerir wrote: David wrote: Furthermore if I witness a crash where someone dies can I assume that the victim will survive in their own world so far as at least one quantum branch of survivability seems possible? David Kwinter In case, after the crash, there is somebody who is really

Re: Quantum accident survivor

2003-10-31 Thread scerir
Joao: I have heard that Schrodinger tried to revive his cat that way and found out that it only works nine out of ten times... Ah! Now I understand why Einstein and then also Bell changed a bit that 'paradox'. In Einstein terms |dead |alive are replaced, if I remember well, by |ink spot

Re: Quantum accident survivor

2003-10-31 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Yes, this is Quantum Immortality in a nutshell. If the MWI is correct, it is impossible to die from a subjective point of view. Hooray! Yes but there can be no communication from one possible world to another (thus no cross-world awareness), because, think about it, if I could communicate

Re: Quantum accident survivor

2003-10-31 Thread Joao Leao
You are quite right in one point, Hal: ...probably a lot of things!. But you should have written: Certainly a lot of things, each one with high probability. If you pick photons rather than, say, flying massive debris, you should in all honesty, include photons along all the spectrum including,

Re: Quantum accident survivor

2003-10-31 Thread David Kwinter
OK, what about heat? Heat fills low pressure areas uniformly so there could be no bubble of non-vaporizing heat for the scientist to live in. Isn't the heat an absolute killer? On Friday, October 31, 2003, at 10:55 AM, Hal Finney wrote: David Kwinter writes: The concept of what makes a real

Re: Quantum accident survivor

2003-10-31 Thread Hal Finney
Joao Leao, [EMAIL PROTECTED], writes: You are quite right in one point, Hal: ...probably a lot of things!. But you should have written: Certainly a lot of things, each one with high probability. If you pick photons rather than, say, flying massive debris, you should in all honesty, include