Re: Quick Quantum Question.
Breent your distortion of my words may come from my mindset of a non-IndoEuropean mothertongue - in English. I wrote: ...by building further levels on unfounded assumptions - no matter how fit they may be to a theory we favor... you wrote: You imply that our theories are just a matter of favor. As I understand it has a different meaning. I imply nothing. I presume we have a similar idea about 'scientific method': not restricted to reductionist model-views, yet the 'preaching' I got about it does not rely to my text. I may 'favor' (i.e. like better than another one) a theory freely. An nth level of conclusions - based on an idea I may not approve - may be a likeable formula, I keep my mind free enough. IMO it does not 'fit' into MY 'scientific method', because the original startup was an assumption on maybe shaky grounds. I trust my sense of 'scientific' logic because it landed to me 38 patent-approvals. (=Pudding test). BM: There's a difference between wishful speculation and informed extrapolation... The question is: what is the 'information' based on? If on a model-based selective (statistical?) assumption, oops: calculative explanation, and extrapolated into beyond-model areas, then a speculation (scientific, of course)may give more reliability if based on well (better?) informed (scientific) views. I usually do not use the 'sc' word so frequently, but it seems you 'favor' it. I still owe you a reply in the Big Bang case, I am slow. John - Original Message - From: Brent Meeker To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 1:19 PM Subject: Re: Quick Quantum Question. John Mikes wrote: Chris, I am with this list for a decade or so, and learned that this group accepts a negative position as well, not only 'hosanna' to the 'officially (here) accepted one. So here it comes: In my (heretic? and personal) view 1. universes in the Multiverse are not necessarily identical, indeed all possible (see Stathis' reply to you) means IMO diversity vs identity, so I find it unfounded that in all 'other' universes the 2nd law should flourish (indeed I consider it even here some (reductionist) model-related (and restricted) deduction from our limited observational skills and their 'historic' (applied math based) explanation). That's a good point. Of course if all possible universes eventuate with equal probability, the 2nd law will hold because that is just what is assumed by it - there are a lot more ways to age than to stay young. But why with equal probability. Bruno's UD must produce some measure on the universes it generates, but it's not clear that this agrees with the physicists equi-probable (hence the white rabbit problem. Incidentally why do we call it the white rabbit problem? White rabbits are quite common. Why isn't it the white crow problem?) 2. In my view of an interactive wholeness we exist in here (if really) - in relation to the TOTAL of THIS universe - a transfer into different background (universe?) would necessarily discontinue our complexity (uncuttable total 'self?') we are here. What may happen 'there' (if...) is at best an assumption and I would not draw further conclusions (definitely not as accepted facts!) by building further levels on unfounded assumptions - no matter how fit they may be to a theory we favor. You imply that our theories are just a matter of favor. If our theory is one supported by the scientific method (and like the 2nd law maybe very much contrary to our favor) then it is the best tool we have for speculating about things we cannot (yet?) test. There's a difference between wishful speculation and informed extrapolation. They may both be wrong, the latter is the way to bet. 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 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?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Quick Quantum Question.
John M wrote: Breent your distortion of my words may come from my mindset of a non-IndoEuropean mothertongue - in English. I wrote: .../by building further levels on unfounded assumptions - no matter how fit they may be to a theory we favor.../ you wrote: You imply that our theories are just a matter of favor. As I understand it has a different meaning. I imply nothing. I presume we have a similar idea about 'scientific method': not restricted to reductionist model-views, yet the 'preaching' I got about it does not rely to my text. I may 'favor' (i.e. like better than another one) a theory freely. An nth level of conclusions - based on an idea I may not approve - may be a likeable formula, I keep my mind free enough. IMO it does not 'fit' into MY 'scientific method', because the original startup was an assumption on maybe shaky grounds. What's the difference between starting with an hypothesis and an assumption? Isn't that step one in the scientific method? I trust my sense of 'scientific' logic because it landed to me 38 patent-approvals. (=Pudding test). BM: There's a difference between wishful speculation and informed extrapolation... The question is: what is the 'information' based on? If on a model-based selective (statistical?) assumption, oops: calculative explanation, and extrapolated into beyond-model areas, The whole point of a model is to extrapolate (and interpolate) to unobserved cases - otherwise science could just be a compendium of data. 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 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?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Quick Quantum Question.
I have a question for people here who know the issues better than me: I was having an argument about alleged Quantum Immortality/Quantum suicide with some people who argue that because the 2nd law of thermodynamics continues regardless in each universe a 'me' continues within, I should ultimately age away, therefore Quantum immortality is a lost cause in principle. Any counter arguements or agreements with this would be appreciated. chris. _ Exclusive Ed Byrne daily comedy clips on MSN Video http://specials.uk.msn.com/edbyrne/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Quick Quantum Question.
On 3/2/07, chris peck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a question for people here who know the issues better than me: I was having an argument about alleged Quantum Immortality/Quantum suicide with some people who argue that because the 2nd law of thermodynamics continues regardless in each universe a 'me' continues within, I should ultimately age away, therefore Quantum immortality is a lost cause in principle. If all possible worlds are instantiated, there will always be worlds, albeit of low measure, where you continue to live even if your life depends on all the gas in a room spontaneously gathering in the proverbial corner. 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 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?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Quick Quantum Question.
On 2 Mar, 12:43, chris peck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a question for people here who know the issues better than me: I was having an argument about alleged Quantum Immortality/Quantum suicide with some people who argue that because the 2nd law of thermodynamics continues regardless in each universe a 'me' continues within, I should ultimately age away, therefore Quantum immortality is a lost cause in principle. Any counter arguements or agreements with this would be appreciated. 2LT is itself statistical. In a multiverse, some universes will violate it. chris. _ Exclusive Ed Byrne daily comedy clips on MSN Videohttp://specials.uk.msn.com/edbyrne/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Quick Quantum Question.
Chris, I am with this list for a decade or so, and learned that this group accepts a negative position as well, not only 'hosanna' to the 'officially (here) accepted one. So here it comes: In my (heretic? and personal) view 1. universes in the Multiverse are not necessarily identical, indeed all possible (see Stathis' reply to you) means IMO diversity vs identity, so I find it unfounded that in all 'other' universes the 2nd law should flourish (indeed I consider it even here some (reductionist) model-related (and restricted) deduction from our limited observational skills and their 'historic' (applied math based) explanation). 2. In my view of an interactive wholeness we exist in here (if really) - in relation to the TOTAL of THIS universe - a transfer into different background (universe?) would necessarily discontinue our complexity (uncuttable total 'self?') we are here. What may happen 'there' (if...) is at best an assumption and I would not draw further conclusions (definitely not as accepted facts!) by building further levels on unfounded assumptions - no matter how fit they may be to a theory we favor. You (and others) may believe whatever one wants to, you asked a question and I provided a (rather negative) reply. MY opinion. John M On 3/2/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/2/07, chris peck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a question for people here who know the issues better than me: I was having an argument about alleged Quantum Immortality/Quantum suicide with some people who argue that because the 2nd law of thermodynamics continues regardless in each universe a 'me' continues within, I should ultimately age away, therefore Quantum immortality is a lost cause in principle. If all possible worlds are instantiated, there will always be worlds, albeit of low measure, where you continue to live even if your life depends on all the gas in a room spontaneously gathering in the proverbial corner. 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 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?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Quick Quantum Question.
chris peck wrote: I have a question for people here who know the issues better than me: I was having an argument about alleged Quantum Immortality/Quantum suicide with some people who argue that because the 2nd law of thermodynamics continues regardless in each universe a 'me' continues within, I should ultimately age away, therefore Quantum immortality is a lost cause in principle. Any counter arguements or agreements with this would be appreciated. chris. The second law doesn't say that the entropy of individual biological organisms (or computers or whatever other physical system your mind is running in) necessarily is likely to increase--the second law only predicts a high probability of entropy increase in isolated systems, meaning systems where no matter or energy is entering or exiting them. An open system, like the Earth's biosphere, can maintain a low-entropy state indefinitely as long as it is consuming a steady supply of low-entropy matter or energy from the outside (in the biosphere's case, sunlight). So as long as the entire universe has not gone into a heat death state, you can in theory survive. Whether or not the universe does go into heat death or does something else is an unsolved problem in cosmology, and there have been suggestions that life may be able to perform an infinite number of computations, consistent with subjective immortality, in either an open universe (Freeman Dyson's scenario) or a Big Crunch universe (Frank Tipler's scenario), although whether these will really work depends on what the final theory of quantum gravity looks like (see http://www.slate.com/id/2096491/entry/2096506/ for a somewhat humorous take on physicist's debates on whether life can last forever). Besides all this, there's also the fact that quantum immortality doesn't say your subjective sense of time has to match the universe's. If whatever passes for your brain is in a certain physical state 100 billion years after the Big Bang, and in some sufficiently distant region of space or some alternate branch of the multiverse 10 billion years after the Big Bang there happens to be a region that duplicates that physical state, then subjectively you can continue as the external clock resets from 100 billion years to 10 billion years. Jesse _ Rates near 39yr lows! $430K Loan for $1,399/mo - Paying Too Much? Calculate new payment http://www.lowermybills.com/lre/index.jsp?sourceid=lmb-9632-18226moid=7581 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Quick Quantum Question.
chris peck wrote: I have a question for people here who know the issues better than me: I was having an argument about alleged Quantum Immortality/Quantum suicide with some people who argue that because the 2nd law of thermodynamics continues regardless in each universe a 'me' continues within, I should ultimately age away, therefore Quantum immortality is a lost cause in principle. Any counter arguements or agreements with this would be appreciated. chris. The 2nd law is a statistical result - it only means that you will age away in almost all universes. 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 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?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Quick Quantum Question.
John Mikes wrote: Chris, I am with this list for a decade or so, and learned that this group accepts a negative position as well, not only 'hosanna' to the 'officially (here) accepted one. So here it comes: In my (heretic? and personal) view 1. universes in the Multiverse are not necessarily identical, indeed all possible (see Stathis' reply to you) means IMO diversity vs identity, so I find it unfounded that in all 'other' universes the 2nd law should flourish (indeed I consider it even here some (reductionist) model-related (and restricted) deduction from our limited observational skills and their 'historic' (applied math based) explanation). That's a good point. Of course if all possible universes eventuate with equal probability, the 2nd law will hold because that is just what is assumed by it - there are a lot more ways to age than to stay young. But why with equal probability. Bruno's UD must produce some measure on the universes it generates, but it's not clear that this agrees with the physicists equi-probable (hence the white rabbit problem. Incidentally why do we call it the white rabbit problem? White rabbits are quite common. Why isn't it the white crow problem?) 2. In my view of an interactive wholeness we exist in here (if really) - in relation to the TOTAL of THIS universe - a transfer into different background (universe?) would necessarily discontinue our complexity (uncuttable total 'self?') we are here. What may happen 'there' (if...) is at best an assumption and I would not draw further conclusions (definitely not as accepted facts!) by building further levels on unfounded assumptions - no matter how fit they may be to a theory we favor. You imply that our theories are just a matter of favor. If our theory is one supported by the scientific method (and like the 2nd law maybe very much contrary to our favor) then it is the best tool we have for speculating about things we cannot (yet?) test. There's a difference between wishful speculation and informed extrapolation. They may both be wrong, the latter is the way to bet. 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 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?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Quick Quantum Question.
Hi, On Friday 02 March 2007 19:19:25 Brent Meeker wrote: That's a good point. Of course if all possible universes eventuate with equal probability, the 2nd law will hold because that is just what is assumed by it - there are a lot more ways to age than to stay young. But why with equal probability. Bruno's UD must produce some measure on the universes it generates, but it's not clear that this agrees with the physicists equi-probable (hence the white rabbit problem. Incidentally why do we call it the white rabbit problem? White rabbits are quite common. Why isn't it the white crow problem?) It is a reference to Alice in wonderland I think (and maybe to the follow the white rabbit from matrix which is itself a reference to Alice) ;-D. Quentin Anciaux --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Quick Quantum Question.
Hello everyone I just want to post a message of thanks for the replies you have all given me. It really is appreciated whether for or against the proposition. by 'eck you're a brainy lot! thank you all very much. Chris. _ Rate your skiving credentials with our Slack-o-meter http://www.slack-o-meter.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: [SPAM] Re: Quick Quantum Question.
1Z: '2LT is itself statistical.' MP: Now this is fascinating! My, rough and ready plain-English, take on entropy is that for us, whenever we experience it, it is the expansion of the universe writ small. How so? Well the essential concept is that the essence of energy is motion. In fact I like to say that energy IS motion, for all practical purposes anyway. And potential energy? I here you ask, well that is the promise of motion. Equally important are duration and existence. That which moves, goes where it can [or where it must]. The faster things move then the more different places they can be in. And that brings us to the concept of entropy as a measure of the proportion of free energy within a system that is not available to do work. And if the universe we live in was not expanding then the free energy within it would have spread itself throughout by now, indeed it would have been like that from the start. So it can be seen that we depend on the next to nothingness of outer space for there to be somewhere for 'surplus' energy in our environment to go to. Our Earth, and particularly our biosphere is a steady-state system [albeit evolving] in which some of the relatively consistent supply of energy from the Sun gets trapped within plants and then it slowly works its way free, by multitudes of complex pathways through plant growth, or through the metabolism of the myriad other species who live off the plants, so that most of it eventually radiates off into space as heat. Meanwhile, as we do all the things we need to, there is always more can happen than we want to happen, and usually more that can happen than we can possibly know about. So the cookie crumbles, the car engine needs a radiator to take away unusable heat, likewise the computer's CPU, and everywhere that we cook, work, play and sleep, has to be cleaned up or the randomising effect of stray energy escaping will make all these places unusable with dirt and disorder. ' ... in a multiverse, some universes will violate it ... ' MP: But is THAT necessarily so? I don't think anybody really has any idea what all these alternative universes are, except useful imaginative constructs that help the mathematics of QM to look good. I mean the way I see it, if they are at least somewhat of the same as ours then energy will spread where it will [ ie entropy], and if they are nothing like our universe we have nothing to say. I guess my view is a reductionist anthropic enterprise. Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ 1Z wrote: On 2 Mar, 12:43, chris peck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a question for people here who know the issues better than me: I was having an argument about alleged Quantum Immortality/Quantum suicide with some people who argue that because the 2nd law of thermodynamics continues regardless in each universe a 'me' continues within, I should ultimately age away, therefore Quantum immortality is a lost cause in principle. Any counter arguements or agreements with this would be appreciated. 2LT is itself statistical. In a multiverse, some universes will violate it. chris. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
