Re: Russell's book
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: This is the most immediate response of people to the QTI idea: even if it's true, what do I care if other versions of me survive in the multiverse if I'm going to die? According to QTI you are not going to die in any universe because there are no dead ends in the branching. The problem is, you can arbitrarily divide up the moments of your life and say that, for example, you were alive from 2:50 PM to 2:51 PM, then suddenly vanished from the universe (i.e. you were instantly and painlessly killed), then a perfect copy of you suddenly appeared at 2:51 PM and lived another minute. What would you notice if this happened? Would you worry about dying? I put it to you that this is precisely I wouldn't mind being in the branch that experiences an uninterrupted stream of consciousness, but I worry that instances of me in the branches where I am supposed to commit suicide would be biased towards not doing it, given enough time to think about it. As for the factoring machine, it simply wouldn't work. You would experience just the miraculous escape after the gun shot without having a solution to the computationally hard problem. You would still end up dead in most worlds from a third person POV though, wouldn't you? That seems the main impediment to actually conducting a QS-type experiment (aside Why would you care about the opinion of those observers left forever behind... from the possibility that all this MWI stuff is just wrong, of course). Even in my scheme where there is just a possibility of death some calculations I have done suggest that if you could demonstrate that your success rate after many bets was better than chance to a statistically significant extent, your chance of dying would also have to be statistically significant. It's as if the multiverse is conspiring against us to prevent us from proving its existence! No, it should be easy to make yourself experience a universe in which you have convinced others using the ability to solve any number of very difficult problems in case the machine worked, or just by being 2000 years old. But after you do manage to convince everybody, you would shortly find yourself in a very lonely universe, so I guess that even if you could prove QTI it would be in your best interest to keep it a secret. Stathis Papaioannou _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Russell's book
David Nyman wrote: Some of us may recall the tontine, invented in the 17th century by a Neapolitan banker called Lorenzo de Tonti as an investment scheme, but now illegal, in the US and UK at least. The only beneficiary is the last survivor, who scoops the pool. A QTI tontine would presumably make winners of *all* its members (makes you wonder about about a conservation principle for money). There's still an incentive to bump the others off to speed the process, however, even though they would still end up as beneficiaries themselves on other branches. Rationally, they should draw lots, with a single winner being the only one who doesn't commit suicide (this should of course be automated). I doubt this method would be any more popular with the authorities though. That is reasonable. Even if they accept QTI, they would still have to manage the resulting social mess in their POVs. What about the possibility to end up through QTI in a universe of eternal pain? If the outcome depends on your state of mind at the time of death (death from other's POVs of course), we may have Quantum Heaven and Hell theories:) David --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Russell's book
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Yet another QTI money-making scheme, this one rather less frightening than standard QS: you find a gambling game which is completely fair (easier said than done) and take with you the means of instant death, like a strong poison which you keep in your pocket. You place your bet all the while repeating, if I lose I'll kill myself. You're not crazy and you probably won't kill yourself if you lose, but if it's a perfectly fair game, the non-zero chance that you *might* kill yourself (because you say it to yourself and because you have the means) should, over many bets, swing the odds in your favour in the universes in which you survive. Then merely the small probability of commiting suicide in an unfavourable universe because of psychological reasons would swing the odds towards being in a favourable one. In addition, weak persons, likely to commit suicide under harsh conditions, would have higher probability of experiencing favourable histories. However, you would not want to experience the suicide part. Otherwise, what would any instance of you gain from actually doing it? Why would it care for other instances of you reaping the benefits? Itself would still suffer death. It might as well avoid all risk taking confort in the idea that other instances are using the QTI money-making scheme or are just being lucky. For the idea to make sense, it is key to avoid experiencing anything after the dice are thrown. In the factoring scheme you need some time to check the solution, so you would end up checking the solution and by the time you find that you have a wrong answer it is too late, bang and, if QTI holds, miraculous escape. For the scheme to work, the solution being wrong must be equivallent to you not existing. With original QTI and death that is already the case. Stathis Papaioannou _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Russell's book
Periklis Akritidis wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Yet another QTI money-making scheme, this one rather less frightening than standard QS: you find a gambling game which is completely fair (easier said than done) and take with you the means of instant death, like a strong poison which you keep in your pocket. You place your bet all the while repeating, if I lose I'll kill myself. You're not crazy and you probably won't kill yourself if you lose, but if it's a perfectly fair game, the non-zero chance that you *might* kill yourself (because you say it to yourself and because you have the means) should, over many bets, swing the odds in your favour in the universes in which you survive. Then merely the small probability of commiting suicide in an unfavourable universe because of psychological reasons would swing the odds towards being in a favourable one. In addition, weak persons, likely to commit suicide under harsh conditions, would have higher probability of experiencing favourable histories. However, you would not want to experience the suicide part. Otherwise, what would any instance of you gain from actually doing it? Why would it care for other instances of you reaping the benefits? Itself would still suffer death. It might as well avoid all risk taking confort in the idea that other instances are using the QTI money-making scheme or are just being lucky. For the idea to make sense, it is key to avoid experiencing anything after the dice are thrown. In unfavourable branches that is. In the factoring scheme you need some time to check the solution, so you would end up checking the solution and by the time you find that you have a wrong answer it is too late, bang and, if QTI holds, miraculous escape. For the scheme to work, the solution being wrong must be equivallent to you not existing. With original QTI and death that is already the case. Stathis Papaioannou _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
