> - Oorspronkelijk bericht -
> Van: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Aan: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: "everything"
> Verzonden: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 11:39 AM
> Onderwerp: Re: Implications of M
If you accept that you can experience having been unconscious, then you also
have to accept that you can survive with memory loss in any branch.
This means that if you are faced with almost certain death, it is more
likely that you will find yourself alive in a completely different sector of
the m
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: ""Hal Finney"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aan: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC:
Verzonden: Sunday, May 01, 2005 07:30 PM
Onderwerp: Re: Memory erasure
> You can turn this whole chain of logic around and make it an argument
> against QS. Sleep proves
Although (quantum) suicide experiments can never be
successful, memory erasure could still work. Suppose you are an artifically
intelligent machine and you can erase any part of your memory. One day
you receive news that an asteroid is on its way to earth which will completely
destroy the pl
The MWI made me take the idea of multiple universes/multiple realities
serious. When I joined this list I believed that quantum suicide could work,
but I later found out that it cannot possibly work. I now believe that there
exists an ensemble of all possible mathematical models/descriptions/comput
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0504200
Quantum Behavior of Deterministic Systems with Information Loss. Path
Integral ApproachAuthors: M.
Blasone, P. Jizba,
H.
KleinertComments: 11 pages, RevTeXSubj-class: Quantum
Physics; Mathematical Physics
't Hooft's derivation of quantum from class
I agree with Hal. The measure is doubled after copying. So, this is sort of
the reverse of a suicide experiment in which the measure decreases. If you
consider a doubling in which one of the copies doesn't survive then the
measure stays the same, while in suicide experiment it decreases.
Both the
I more or less agree with Jesse. But I would say that the measure of
similarity should also be an absolute measure that multiplied with the
absolute measure defines a new effective absolute measure for a given
observer.
Given the absolute measure you can define effective conditional
probabilities,
I don't think that the MW immortality is correct at all! In a certain sense
we are
immortal, because the enseble of all possible worlds is a fixed static
entity. So,
you ''always'' find yourselve alive in one state or another. However, you
won't
experience youself evolving in the infinite far f
There is another argument (also mentioned by Hal on this list some time ago)
that also suggests that the measure must decay faster than 2^(-program
length). This arguments involve the anthropic factor. The measure for an
observer to find himself in a universe is the product of an ''intrinsic''
meas
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311059
Authors: Fotini
Markopoulou, Lee
Smolin
We provide a mechanism by which, from a background independent
model with no quantum mechanics, quantum theory arises in the same limit in
which spatial properties appear. Starting with an arbitrary abstract g
Download the article free of charge here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0404156
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: "Pete Carlton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aan: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Verzonden: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 07:09 PM
Onderwerp: Ambjørn et al.
> Of possible general interest -
>
> J. Ambj
The properties of ordinary matter are strongly
constrained by the anthropic principle. In soome cases you can even calculate
non trivial things. E.g. the anthropic reasoning was used by Hoyle
to prove the existence of an energy level of the carbon-12 nucleus.
Dark matter seems to be much
John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aan: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Verzonden: Saturday, August 14, 2004 04:51 PM
Onderwerp: Re: Quantum Rebel - complementarity
> Thanks! Maybe even further?
> John M
> - Original Message -
od is it?
>
> Brent Meeker
>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 2:35 PM
> >To: Russell Standish; John M
> >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: Quantum Rebel - complemen
Maybe we should look at deterministic theories, such as:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0104219
John M wrote:
> Yet it would be refreshing to approach the concept from another side
> (another framework), - maybe a new one??
I agree. If the photon did behave in an erratic way you would be able to say
that the photon is behaving erratic and not the laws of physics that make
your instruments work. But in this hypothetical case you would use some
other way to relate time to space. This relation also has to involve a
const
Questioning whether the speed of light has changed within a certain class of
theories is nonsense and this is not an opinion but an elementary
mathematical fact. Of course, one may e.g. question whether photons are
massive and whether this mass has changed, leading to a (wavelength
dependent) chang
That's correct, but such theories can be mapped to
theories with constant C. Ultimately only dimensionless constants matter,
all other constants are just conversion factors.
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: "Ben Goertzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aan: "Saiba
Unfortunately, sensationalists articles that are completely baloney appear
in most scientific journals from time to time.
Nature published an article claiming that if the fine structure conswtant is
changing, as suggested by some astronomical observations, then this change
must be due to a change
nderwerp: Re: Quantum Rebel
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
>
> >Now in the article, Afshar claims to have measured which slit the
> >photon passed through and verified the existence of an interference
> >pattern. However, this is not the case - without the wires in
> >place to
The probability that Russell's message contained a virus was low (he uses
linux) but nonzero. So, I guess that's bad news for some of my copies in the
multiverse.
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: "Jeanne Houston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aan: "CMR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Verzo
I just read the New Scientist article "Quantum Rebel" last night about
Shariar Afshar's work on the double slit experiment. Ingenious as the
experiment is, I really don't think it says anything about different
interpretations of QM. Indeed, the outcome of the experiment is just
what I'd expect from
Even if there is only one World, there would still be a sort of Many Worlds
branching after each quantum observation, see here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102010
Many worlds in one
Authors: Jaume Garriga, Alexander Vilenkin
Comments: 9 pages, 2 figures, comments and references added
Journal-ref
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: "Kory Heath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aan: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Verzonden: Monday, April 26, 2004 03:00 AM
Onderwerp: Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?
> At 10:48 AM 4/25/04, Saibal Mitra wrote:
> >This is the &#x
some massive computer?
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
> >
> >This is the ''white rabbit'' problem which was discussed on
> >this list a few
> >years ago. This can be solved by assuming that there exists
> >a measure over
> >the set of al universe
This is the ''white rabbit'' problem which was discussed on
this list a few
years ago. This can be solved by assuming that there exists
a measure over
the set of al universes, favoring simpler ones.
Also, note that there is no such thing as ''next possible''
states. Once you
consider the whole
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0404045
Quantum mechanics without quantum logic
Authors: D.A. Slavnov
Comments: 24 pages, no figures, Latex
We describe a scheme of quantum mechanics in which the Hilbert space and
linear operators are only secondary structures of the theory. As primary
structures
tes)
which were (nearly) the same can only
become more different from each other (or their follow-on most-similar
states can anyway) with the passage
of time (OR with lower probability in a shorter time.)
Maybe?
Eric
Saibal Mitra wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Jesse Mazer <[EMA
- Original Message -
From: Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 12:19 AM
Subject: Re: Request for a glossary of acronyms
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
> >
> >This means that the relative measure is completely fixed
This means that the relative measure is completely fixed by the absolute
measure. Also the relative measure is no longer defined when probabilities
are not conserved (e.g. when the observer may not survive an experiment as
in quantum suicide). I don't see why you need a theory of consciousness.
Le
Congratulations!
B.t.w., I don't like the doublespaced version on
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0001020
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 5:16 AM
Subject: Occam's Razor now published
I don't think there are many intelligent beings per cubic Plank length in
our universe at all! In fact, string theorists don't know how to get to the
standard model from their favorite theory, yet they still believe in it.
Simple deterministic models could certainly explain our laws of physics, as
- Original Message -
From: Fred Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Everything <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: Peculiarities of our universe
> One other scenario is that a civilization has indeed reached this
pervasive
> state, but not in a form we'd
- Original Message -
From: Hal Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 12:24 AM
Subject: Peculiarities of our universe
> There are a couple of peculiarities of our universe which it would be
> nice if the All-Universe Hypothesis (AUH) could expl
Recently Ken Olum wrote an article about a related paradox involving the
anthropic principle, see here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0303070
''Conflict between anthropic reasoning and observation
Anthropic reasoning often begins with the premise that we should expect to
find ourselves typical am
There are some problems with this as Eric has pointed out.
The best way to define identity, i.m.o., would be to say that a program is a
SAS having an identity. If that SAS experience the outcome of an experiment,
it's program will be changed by the mere fact it has acquired the memory of
the outco
Russell wrote:
> The empirical problem with the ASSA is that under most reasonable
> proposals for the absolute measure, observer moments corresponding to
> younger people have higher measure than older people. Whilst the
> reference class issue puts a lower bound on how old you would expect
> to
ation ends. I prefer this or
#1.
#1 seems the most reasonable option to me. You do away with the reference
class problem. Also it is fully consistent with ''normal'' physics.
Saibal
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTEC
There have been many replies to this. I would say that you wouldn't expect
to survive such accidents.
Assume that we are sampled from a probability distribution over a set of
possible states. E.g. in eternal inflation theories all possible quantum
states the observable universe can be in are all r
I forgot to give the URL. It is:
http://arxiv.org/abs/math.HO/0306303
Saibal
Leibniz, Information, Math and PhysicsAuthors: G. J.
Chaitin (IBM Research)Subj-class: History and
OverviewMSC-class: 68Q30
The information-theoretic point of view proposed by Leibniz in
1686 and developed by algorithmic information theory (AIT) suggests that
mathematics and physics are
Bruno wrote:
> I agree with you except that I don't see how the "omniscient simulator"
will
> miss your small cross on the wall, because this will make some change
> in your scanned brain, and He will take those changes into account.
> So, giving the hypotheses, your "if the creature is unaware of
This sounds very strange to me. Arguably one could say that my brain is
simulating me (where I associate myself with a particular algorithm). I
would say that any physical process computing me has to have my
consciousness. So, if someone starts to simulate me, there is a 50%
probability that I will
> - Oorspronkelijk bericht -
> Van: "Brett Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Aan: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Verzonden: woensdag 12 maart 2003 11:28
> Onderwerp: Re: Parmenides' Principle
>
>
> However, no where in the
> multiverse is the charge on an electron 4 Coulombs. Somewhere in the
> plentit
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212095
Determinism beneath Quantum Mechanics
Author: Gerard 't Hooft (Spinoza Institute, Utrecht University)
Comments: Conf. Proceedings, "Quo Vadis Quantum Mechanics", Philadelphia,
2002, 12 pages, 1 figure Postscript
Report-no: ITP-02/69; SPIN-2002/45
Contrary to
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302131
astro-ph/0302131 [abs, ps(600), other] :
Title: Parallel Universes
Authors: Max Tegmark (Penn)
Comments: 18 pages, 8 figs. A less technical adaptation is scheduled for the
May 2003 issue of Scientific American. Version with full-resolution figs at
this http U
Well, just perform this simple experiment to find out. See:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301229
t posting had since had.
Saibal
>
> Cheers
>
> Wei Dai wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 11:48:08PM +0100, Saibal Mitra wrote:
> > > Actually, one doesn't have to dig very deep in the archive. This very
thread
> > > is an example of an
Hall Finney: ''You might want to clarify what you mean by quantum suicide
> "working". What do you hope to accomplish via QS? What effect will it
> have on your subjective perceptions?''
By ''quantum suicide working'' I mean that you could make the probability of
winning the lottery as close to
I am not convinced that the MWI implies that quantum suicide should work. A
hidden assumption proponents of quantum suicide make is that once you are in
a certain branch all the other possible branches are off limits to you. You
will forever move on in that branch. I reject this. I could also survi
Hal Finney wrote:
> Maybe you could look at the list archive at
> http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list%40eskimo.com/maillist.html
> and say which posts from, say, December 30th and 31st you would reject.
> (Or, if the list would be shorter, you could say which posts in that
> period you wou
I think that Newcomb's paradox does provide evidence for machine
consciousness, independent of implementation.
[A reminder. Newcomb's paradox: A highly superior being from another part
of the galaxy presents you with two boxes, one open and one closed. In the
open box there is a thousand-dollar b
ochen and Specker theorem, or GHZ (Greenberger, Horn, Zeilinger),
> ... or it would be equivalent with Everett (accepting that quantum
> contextuality + realism implies the "many-things").
>
> Bruno
>
>
> Original message by Saibal Mitra:
>
> >- Oorsp
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aan: "Tim May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Verzonden: vrijdag 4 oktober 2002 18:13
Onderwerp: Re: Many Fermis Interpretation Paradox -- So why aren't they
here?
> At 9:36 -0700 1/10/2002, Tim May wrote:
>
>
The new edition of Siegel's textbook ``Fields´´ can be
downloaded from:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9912205
Saibal
: "Wei Dai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aan: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Verzonden: donderdag 15 augustus 2002 23:46
Onderwerp: Re: Doomsday-like argument in cosmology
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 11:28:28PM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote:
>
I think that the difference is that invoking the SIA does not affect the
conclusion of the paper.
Saibal
Wei Dai wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 12:45:17AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Dyson, L., Kleban, M. & Susskind, L. Disturbing implications of a
> > cosmological constant. Preprint
Bruno wrote:
> More seriously I do no more know what exactly is new in that papers
> on the primes.
> Here a message I got from friends. I currently agree, but perhaps I still
miss
> something?
I think that a polynomial time algorithm means that the algorithm's running
time is a polynomial in
L
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0204256
Ordinary atom-mirror atom bound states: A new window on the mirror
world
Authors: R. Foot, S.
MitraComments: about 8 pages, couple of changes
Mirror symmetry is a plausible candidate for a fundamental
symmetry of particle interactions which can be exactl
Hal Finney wrote: ``Unfortunately it does not seem
likely that an explanation suitable for a college senior is available,
> unless he is willing to educate himself for several months on higher
mathematics.´´
I suspect that Roy Williams Clickery included this condition so that he
always has an e
Exp(Pi*Sqrt(n)) PageThis table lists values of Exp(Pi*Sqrt(n)), for
some selected values of n up to 1000. Some of these values are very close to
integers. A prize will be awarded to anyone who can either convincingly
argue that this is coincidence, or who can explain why this is so in terms
The very act of predicting what you will choose is equivalent to generating
you virtually and observing what box you will choose. So, when you stand in
front of the two boxes, you don't know if you are in the real world or in
the virtual world. The causal argument is thus invalid.
The only way to
Hello Stephen,
Here are the references to 't Hooft's papers. Ref. 3 is written for
non-specialists, and should be easy to follow.
Greetings,
Saibal
[1] Quantum Gravity as a Dissipative Deterministic System
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903084
[2] Determinism in Free Bosons
http://arxiv.org/ab
Gordon wrote:
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
> >
> > This all assumes that photons, electrons, etc. are real. We don't know
that.
> > If you were Einstein, and you were faced with Bell's result, you could
have
> > concluded that the nonexistence of local hidden
MWI is a fully deterministic theory, but it is not the
only deterministic theory consistent with QM.
I believe that 't Hooft's theory is more natural from the point of view that
universes are programs. It is hard for me to understand how you get
interference between ``nearby´´ universes or progra
This all assumes that photons, electrons, etc. are real. We don't know that.
If you were Einstein, and you were faced with Bell's result, you could have
concluded that the nonexistence of local hidden variables implies that
elementary paricles don't exist. They are mere mathematical tools to compu
Russell wrote:
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
> >
> >
> > Russell wrote:
> > >
> > > I take "consciousness" to be that property essential for the operation
> > > of the Anthropic Principle. The universe is the way it is because we
> > &g
Russell wrote:
>
> I take "consciousness" to be that property essential for the operation
> of the Anthropic Principle. The universe is the way it is because we
> are here observing it as conscious beings.
>
> The first problem this raises is why does the anthropic principle
> work? - one can co
Hello Joe,
>
> I have difficulty with the concept of many distinct programs, each
> representing an individual conscious entity. My understanding of modern
physics
> is that the concept of an isolated individual is essentially obsolete, in
that
> nothing can be defined without relation to eve
Hello Bruno:
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aan: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "everything"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Verzonden: dinsdag 4 juni 2002 19:50
Onderwerp: Re: JOINING posts
> Hi Saibal,
&g
physics, J. Cardy, Cambridge
University Press
[2] Exactly Solved Models in Statistical Mechanics, R.J. Baxter, Academic
Press, New York, 1982
[3] Renormalization Group Studies of Vertex Models, Saibal Mitra,
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9910031
[4] Determinism and Dissipation in Quantum Gravity, Erice
Maybe it isn't working but only seems to be working due to a white
rabbit.
- Origineel Bericht -
Van: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Datum: Maandag, Mei 6, 2002 11:30 am
Onderwerp: Re: test
> At 13:19 -0700 5/05/2002, Wei Dai wrote:
> >This is a test to make sure the Everything Mailin
- Original Message -
From: Brian Scurfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 6:47 AM
Subject: RE: Holodeck guy tries to prove 'Bruno theory'
> In this paper Olum defends the self-indicating assumption which says that
> given the fact you exist you
Nick Bostrom's uses the self-sampling assumption without simultaneously
invoking the self-indicating assumption. That's wrong and leads
straightforward to nonsense.
E.g. the Doomsday argument is a closely related fallacy. This is explained
by Ken Olum:
General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology,
I have made a homepage for Mirror Matter,
It can be found at http://people.zeelandnet.nl/smitra
It is still under construction, comments welcome.
Saibal Mitra
I don't understand this point.
Bill Jefferys wrote:
> Ockham's razor is a consequence of probability theory, if you look at
> things from a Bayesian POV, as I do.
Saibal Mitra
Didn't Hilbert say that physics is far too complicated for physicists?
Saibal
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: "Juergen Schmidhuber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aan: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Verzonden: donderdag 28 maart 2002 18:09
Onderwerp: Re: Optimal Prediction
>
> Bill J
Robert Foot has written a book on mirror matter. It can be ordered or
downloaded from:
http://www.upublish.com/books/foot.htm
Saibal
A new preprint on the mirror matter hypothesis by R. Foot and
T.L. Loon has appeared. My observation that cratering rates on the Moon
point to the presence of mirror asteroids in our solar system is also
included.
See:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0203152
Abstract:
There are a number of v
Recently discovered documents detail the steps Nasa
and the Nixon administration would have taken had the Apollo XI astronauts Neil
Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin been unable to return from the moon.
The following is the full text of the unused speech, ominously entitled "In
the event of
Hello Bruno,
I did follow a course on Hopf algebras, but that's already some time
ago. I will read the articles you mentioned, should be interesting!
B.t.w. Kreimer has also written some papers with David Broadhurst. He
has done some quite amazing work, see his homepage:
http://physics.open.a
n the exact parity model.
Saibal
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: Mirror Symmetry
>
>
> Saibal Mitra:
> > ... a so-called mirror world could exist. Nature would th
It has been conventional wisdom that the
fundamental laws of physics are not invariant under parity. Now, the
computational complexity of a model that lacks mirror symmetry is
much larger than a similar mirror symmetric
model. It would thus be very strange if Nature is indeed not invariant
High Energy Physics - Theory, abstracthep-th/0201092 From: Stephen Blaha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 21:57:12 GMT (634kb)
A Quantum Computer Foundation for the Standard Model and SuperString
Theories
Authors: Stephen
BlahaComments: 78 pages, PDF
We show the Standard Model an
Computer Science, abstractcs.LG/0201005 From: Paul Vitanyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 16:44:10 GMT (11kb)
Sharpening Occam's Razor
Authors: Ming Li (Univ.
Waterloo), John Tromp
(CWI), Paul
Vitanyi (CWI and University of Amsterdam)Comments: LaTeX 10
pagesReport-no: CWI Manu
I am now completely convinced that attempts to
witness low probability events or to travel to low measure sectors of the
plenitude are doomed to failure.
The (hidden) assumption behind quantum suicide is
that of continuity of consciousness: If there is only one unlikely outcome that
will p
Bruno wrote:
>
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
>
> > Now there exists a class of universes, with a very low measure, in
> >which the laws of physics are such that I am guaranteed to win. The
> >probability that I find myself in such a universe will have increased
> >su
Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 25-Dec-01, Saibal Mitra wrote:
> >
> > Charles Goodwin wrote:
> >
> >> Or are you claiming that repeated quantum suicide attempts increase the
> > chances
> >> that you are a computer simulation?
> > Yes that is what
Charles Goodwin wrote:
> Or are you claiming that repeated quantum suicide attempts increase the
chances
> that you are a computer simulation?
Yes that is what I claim.
That would only occur if there was some sort
> of cul-de-sac (assuming you *start* from a physical instantiation, at
least).
to go
back.
Saibal
John Mikes wrote:
OK, Saibal Mitra, you won. Are you happy
now? Can you ever go back?
John Mikes
Suppose that every week I subject myself to a suicide
experiment. I use a suicide machine to win that weeks lottery.
After a few years I will have won hun
Some people will sell one of their kidneys for just a few thousand dollars.
If I were a multi-multi-multi-billionaire I should be able to buy a kidney
for me after the operation.
George Levy wrote:
>
>
> > Saibal Mitra wrote:
> >
> > Suppose that every week I sub
to universes in which X happens to be true.
>
> Always assuming that quantum suicide actually works (as Larry Niven
said
> about the matter transmitter which destroys you at point A and creates a
perfect
> copy at point B, "I wouldn't ride in the damn thing").
>
&g
Suppose that every week I subject myself to a suicide
experiment. I use a suicide machine to win that weeks lottery. After a
few years I will have won hundreds of times in succession.
Now there exists a class of universes, with a very low
measure, in which the laws of physics are such tha
Russel wrote:
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hal wrote:
> >
> >
> > > One of the concepts we have explored is that all universes and hence
> > > all minds exist, but that some observer-moments have greater "measure"
> >
Nick Bostrom wrote:
``Saibal wrote:
A proper calculation using Bayes' theorem is missing in the article. The
conclusion is false.
E.g. let's assume that (2) and (3) are false. So, we know with almost 100%
certainty that we are not living in a simulation, and we know with almost
100% certainty
Hal wrote:
> One of the concepts we have explored is that all universes and hence
> all minds exist, but that some observer-moments have greater "measure"
> than others. This may help to explain why we observe the kind of universe
> that we do, because we must be observer-moments that have rel
A proper calculation using Bayes' theorem is missing in the article. The
conclusion is false.
E.g. let's assume that (2) and (3) are false. So, we know with almost 100%
certainty that we are not living in a simulation, and we know with almost
100% certainty that a posthuman civilization is going
All arrangemets are equally likely, but the probability is, of course, zero.
So with probability one you don't get only zeros.
There is a theorem that says that any finite arbitrary configuration will
appear an infinite number of times in an infinite random sequence with
probability one.
Saibal
We get an interesting paradox if we try to simulate the time
evolution according to the schrödinger equation on a classical machine. Consider
simulating an observer measuring the z-component of a spin in the
state:
a ¦up> + b ¦down>,
where ¦a¦ is not equal to ¦b¦.
The classical computer
101 - 200 of 241 matches
Mail list logo
