RE: Quantum Immortality - the principle of the least improbability/influencing things
Why shouldn't a more natural process prevent Alice from doing this experiment with the lottery? Something far more probable than winning the million which does not let this quantum trick happen? This would be similar to the reasoning you applied to the quantum suicide. It could be much more probable to implant a natural doubt in quantum immortality in Alice's brain which causes her not to carry out the lottery trick. I definitely have this doubt. In this way one could conclude that doubts in quantum immortality would be a consequence of quantum immortality. -Original Message- From: everything-l...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of kla...@bkpsecurity.com Sent: Montag, 29. Dezember 2008 19:51 To: Everything List Subject: Quantum Immortality - the principle of the least improbability/influencing things If Quantum Immortality (QI) is true, then we can ask the question what is the TYPICAL history for an "immortal". The typical history (or the typical time/space trajectory) would be the path most of the immortals take (and remember that in QI all of us are immortals) For each immortal history its weight in the space of all histories diminishes each time an improbable event takes place. Therefore, although in QI all of us are immortals, for a typical immortal the history will follow the principle of the least improbability. Things will be have in the least crazy way that will still allow the immortal to survive. Lets say an immortal decides to commit a suicide for a particular reason. It is then much more probable for some life event to occur that will persuade the immortal to abandon its attempt, then for the bullet to go through the immortal's head without actually killing the immortal. As an example, Alice decides to commit a suicide because her boyfriend Bob left her, Bob can change his mind, call Alice etc. so that the reason for the suicide is removed. Therefore, for a typical immortal there will be no bulllet going through the head, no disfigurement etc. Instead, an event will occur which will naturally remove the need for the suicide. In other words, immortals will not typically perceive themselves living in the world where strange things happen. Instead, the world will somehow make sure that immortals stay alive AND that things behave relatively reasonably. Let us assume that QI is true and that all of us are immortals. What is the least improbable thing that can allow us to stay alive forever? Life extension. With the modern progress of biology it is not completely improbable that a technology is discovered within say next 10 years that will reverse aging. In this scenario a typical immortal will not even tribute his immortality to QI. Instead, immortality will be a natural consequence of life extension. Now lets apply the principle of the least improbability to actually influence things. Lets assume, that Alice who believes in QI wants a certain probable event to happen, for instance win 1,000,000 in a casino. Alice then comes to a casino with a loaded gun and promises to herself, that she will kill herself if she does not win 1,000,000. You can even think about a suicidal lottery machine, which will automatically kill Alice if Alice does not win 1,000,000. Since Alice is immortal, there are two possivle outcomes 1). Alice wins 1,000,000 and the trigger is not pulled 2). Alice does not win 1,000,000, the trigger is pulled, the bullet goes through Alice's head without killing Alice Now although 1) is highly improbable 2) is much much more improbable. Due to the principle of the least improbability 1) is going to happen for a typical immortal - meaning that Alice wins 1,000,000 If you accept that, you should accept that QI provides a way for immortals to influence the world by doing attempted suicides. Essentially, anything becomes possible for an immortal. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Quantum Immortality - the principle of the least improbability/influencing things
kla...@bkpsecurity.com wrote: > If Quantum Immortality (QI) is true, then we can ask the question what > is the TYPICAL history for an "immortal". The typical history (or the > typical time/space trajectory) would be the path most of the immortals > take (and remember that in QI all of us are immortals) > > For each immortal history its weight in the space of all histories > diminishes each time an improbable event takes place. Therefore, > although in QI all of us are immortals, for a typical immortal the > history will follow the principle of the least improbability. Things > will be have in the least crazy way that will still allow the immortal > to survive. > > Lets say an immortal decides to commit a suicide for a particular > reason. It is then much more probable for some life event to occur > that will persuade the immortal to abandon its attempt, then for the > bullet to go through the immortal's head without actually killing the > immortal. As an example, Alice decides to commit a suicide because her > boyfriend Bob left her, Bob can change his mind, call Alice etc. so > that the reason for the suicide is removed. > > Therefore, for a typical immortal there will be no bulllet going > through the head, no disfigurement etc. Instead, an event will occur > which will naturally remove the need for the suicide. > > In other words, immortals will not typically perceive themselves > living in the world where strange things happen. Instead, the world > will somehow make sure that immortals stay alive AND that things > behave relatively reasonably. > > Let us assume that QI is true and that all of us are immortals. What > is the least improbable thing that can allow us to stay alive forever? > Life extension. With the modern progress of biology it is not > completely improbable that a technology is discovered within say next > 10 years that will reverse aging. In this scenario a typical immortal > will not even tribute his immortality to QI. Instead, immortality > will be a natural consequence of life extension. Certainly no one before 1920 attributed his immortality to QM. So it must have just seemed luck to each of them that they live on forever while all their friends and family die. And for the Neanderthal immortals even all their specie dies. And what about the immortal homohabilis?...the immortal tyranosaouri? > > Now lets apply the principle of the least improbability to actually > influence things. > > Lets assume, that Alice who believes in QI wants a certain probable > event to happen, for instance win 1,000,000 in a casino. Alice then > comes to a casino with a loaded gun and promises to herself, that she > will kill herself if she does not win 1,000,000. You can even think > about a suicidal lottery machine, which will automatically kill Alice > if Alice does not win 1,000,000. > > > Since Alice is immortal, there are two possivle outcomes > > 1). Alice wins 1,000,000 and the trigger is not pulled > 2). Alice does not win 1,000,000, the trigger is pulled, the bullet > goes through Alice's head without killing Alice > > Now although 1) is highly improbable 2) is much much more improbable. > > Due to the principle of the least improbability 1) is going to happen > for a typical immortal - meaning that Alice wins 1,000,000 > > If you accept that, you should accept that QI provides a way for > immortals to influence the world by doing attempted suicides. > Essentially, anything becomes possible for an immortal. Let us know how that works out for you. :-) Brent --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Quantum Immortality - the principle of the least improbability/influencing things
If Quantum Immortality (QI) is true, then we can ask the question what is the TYPICAL history for an "immortal". The typical history (or the typical time/space trajectory) would be the path most of the immortals take (and remember that in QI all of us are immortals) For each immortal history its weight in the space of all histories diminishes each time an improbable event takes place. Therefore, although in QI all of us are immortals, for a typical immortal the history will follow the principle of the least improbability. Things will be have in the least crazy way that will still allow the immortal to survive. Lets say an immortal decides to commit a suicide for a particular reason. It is then much more probable for some life event to occur that will persuade the immortal to abandon its attempt, then for the bullet to go through the immortal's head without actually killing the immortal. As an example, Alice decides to commit a suicide because her boyfriend Bob left her, Bob can change his mind, call Alice etc. so that the reason for the suicide is removed. Therefore, for a typical immortal there will be no bulllet going through the head, no disfigurement etc. Instead, an event will occur which will naturally remove the need for the suicide. In other words, immortals will not typically perceive themselves living in the world where strange things happen. Instead, the world will somehow make sure that immortals stay alive AND that things behave relatively reasonably. Let us assume that QI is true and that all of us are immortals. What is the least improbable thing that can allow us to stay alive forever? Life extension. With the modern progress of biology it is not completely improbable that a technology is discovered within say next 10 years that will reverse aging. In this scenario a typical immortal will not even tribute his immortality to QI. Instead, immortality will be a natural consequence of life extension. Now lets apply the principle of the least improbability to actually influence things. Lets assume, that Alice who believes in QI wants a certain probable event to happen, for instance win 1,000,000 in a casino. Alice then comes to a casino with a loaded gun and promises to herself, that she will kill herself if she does not win 1,000,000. You can even think about a suicidal lottery machine, which will automatically kill Alice if Alice does not win 1,000,000. Since Alice is immortal, there are two possivle outcomes 1). Alice wins 1,000,000 and the trigger is not pulled 2). Alice does not win 1,000,000, the trigger is pulled, the bullet goes through Alice's head without killing Alice Now although 1) is highly improbable 2) is much much more improbable. Due to the principle of the least improbability 1) is going to happen for a typical immortal - meaning that Alice wins 1,000,000 If you accept that, you should accept that QI provides a way for immortals to influence the world by doing attempted suicides. Essentially, anything becomes possible for an immortal. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: KIM 2.2 and 2.3
On 30/12/2008, at 9:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > Hi Kim, > > Still OK to continue? You are ready? "I am good to go!" > > > Let me sum up so far. I suggest you look at the UDA slide. Have teleported it to my screen... > > > For those who don't have it, and want follow: it is the PDF slide of > UDA[1 ... 8] in > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html > > > In Kim 2.1 You agree with MEC =>"I survive" through teleportation. All > right ? "MEC =>" means "Assuming MEC," > It is the UDA step 1 of the slide. "The 1=3" on the right means the > first and third person points of view (figured by "1" and "2" with > points) are identical. (cf Kim has gone on Mars). Yes > > > Kim 2.2 A delay is introduced, with and without "you" knowing the > protocol. Imagine the reconstitutation machine on Mars did work but > with a delay of one month. It is a situation where the first person > experience remains unchanged (same account in the diary) where the > third person account notice a change: the delay. You agree with this? Yes. It would be hard to imagine how this would not be the case... > > That the first person cannot be aware, without external clues, of the > presence and length of reconstitution delays? All right? Except by hindsight, after the event, when I notice (following reconst.) that I am one month younger now than my twin sister who is already on Mars > > > "Kim 2.3" was done through my reply to Abram. It is the self- > duplication thought experiment. I want do it as slowly as possible, > because it is a crucial step. So my first question, and second > question are: > > 1) With a duplication you are scanned and annihilated, and then > reconstitute in two places at once. For example in two identical room > A and room B. . Do you agree that (MEC => I survive a duplication) ? Yes - this follows, given that I am Turing emulable down to the last atom of my being; I am a Universal Machine > > Put in another way, do you agree that if one survive teleportation, > then one can be said to survive in such a duplication. Or polyplication - you could spam every teleportation centre on Mars with copies of me. Each one is Kim, but Kim cannot know (before teleportation) which copy he will *feel* himself to be - assuming he KNOWS you are going to duplicate him and not simply transport him to one place (I choose here 3rd person language on purpose; at this point I cannot see how the 1 and 3 perspective might differ; I could equally have said "each one is me, but I cannot know (before teleportation) which copy I will *feel* myself to be - assuming I KNOW you are going to duplicate me and not simply transport me to one place. It seems to me that what I believe is about to happen (based on what you tell me before I step into the teleporter) affects how I feel (beforehand). If you tell me I am going to two places, my diary will surely reflect my uncertainty about which place I will feel I am in afterward. It seems to me that you could not (at this or any point) tell me which of the two copies I will feel is me either. After the teleportation, the 1 and 3 perspectives separate, necessarily. Each copy will claim (with perfect validity) that he is Kim - so the 1st person uncertainty is clearly symptomatic of the indeterminacy of that point of view. > > > ... and 2) suppose that in both rooms I put, Hmmm... a glass of > you favorite whisky (OK?). In both rooms. What do you answer if I ask > you before that duplication experience, you knowing the protocol, > "Will you drink alcohol after the duplication?". What would you say > say? I will say "Yes, one of me will drink the whiskey after the experiment" - because the one who *feels* he is me will probably need a stiff drink after having his atoms annihilated and reconstituted. I could probably also, with a little wisdom, surmise that the one I do *not* feel I am may - with probability 1/2 - do the same. > > 2-variant): Same question with whisky in room A and gin in room B. Here I would answer that, depending on where I *find myself* following the teleportation, I will drink whiskey or I will not, given that gin makes me vomit. So, if you are asking me beforehand, I can only answer "I do not know at this stage." I've also printed out your 2004 thesis and am studying that as well. I hope I have given the impression that I understand up to here. cheers, K > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?
Hi Abram: My sentence structure could have been better. The Nothing(s) encompass no distinction but need to respond to the stability question. So they have an unavoidable necessity to encompass this distinction. At some point they spontaneously change nature and become Somethings. The particular Something may also be incomplete for the same or some other set of unavoidable questions. This is what keeps the particular incompleteness trace going. In this regard also see my next lines in that post: "The N(k) are thus unstable with respect to their "empty" condition. They each must at some point spontaneously "seek" to encompass this stability distinction. They become evolving S(i) [call them eS(i)]." I have used this Nothing to Something transformation trigger for many years in other posts and did not notice that this time the wording was not as clear as it could have been. However, this lack of clarity seems to have been useful given your discussion of inconsistency driven traces. I had not considered this before. Yours Hal -Original Message- From: everything-l...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Abram Demski Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 12:59 AM To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD? Hal, I do not understand why the Nothings are fundamentally incomplete. I interpreted this as inconsistency, partly due to the following line: "5) At least one divisor type - the Nothings or N(k)- encompass no distinction but must encompass this one. This is a type of incompleteness." If they encompass no distinctions yet encompass one, they are apparently inconsistent. So what do you mean when you instead assert them to be incomplete? --Abram --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
KIM 2.2 and 2.3
Hi Kim, Still OK to continue? You are ready? Let me sum up so far. I suggest you look at the UDA slide. For those who don't have it, and want follow: it is the PDF slide of UDA[1 ... 8] in http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html In Kim 2.1 You agree with MEC =>"I survive" through teleportation. All right ? "MEC =>" means "Assuming MEC," It is the UDA step 1 of the slide. "The 1=3" on the right means the first and third person points of view (figured by "1" and "2" with points) are identical. (cf Kim has gone on Mars). Kim 2.2 A delay is introduced, with and without "you" knowing the protocol. Imagine the reconstitutation machine on Mars did work but with a delay of one month. It is a situation where the first person experience remains unchanged (same account in the diary) where the third person account notice a change: the delay. You agree with this? That the first person cannot be aware, without external clues, of the presence and length of reconstitution delays? All right? "Kim 2.3" was done through my reply to Abram. It is the self- duplication thought experiment. I want do it as slowly as possible, because it is a crucial step. So my first question, and second question are: 1) With a duplication you are scanned and annihilated, and then reconstitute in two places at once. For example in two identical room A and room B. . Do you agree that (MEC => I survive a duplication) ? Put in another way, do you agree that if one survive teleportation, then one can be said to survive in such a duplication. ... and 2) suppose that in both rooms I put, Hmmm... a glass of you favorite whisky (OK?). In both rooms. What do you answer if I ask you before that duplication experience, you knowing the protocol, "Will you drink alcohol after the duplication?". What would you say say? 2-variant): Same question with whisky in room A and gin in room B. Perhaps you are in Holiday, take your time, you can ask any question, including new doubt about what precedes, or what follows, etc. Anyone interested can ask any question or make any comment of course, Best, 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
