Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-25 Thread Günther Greindl
The focus of my paper is on theories in principle fully describing universes (or u-reality). The term 'logically possible' is intended to contrast with 'physically possible' and refers to descriptions (theories) being internally non-contradictory (more in note 4 in my paper). OK Classical

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-22 Thread nichomachus
On Apr 19, 3:46 pm, Günther Greindl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Nichomachus, decision. If she measures the particle's spin as positive, she will elect to switch cases, and if she measures it with a negative spin she will keep the one she has. This is because she wants to be sure that,

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-21 Thread Alastair Malcolm
- Original Message - From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 3:53 AM Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law Alastair Malcolm wrote: - Original Message - From: Günther Greindl [EMAIL PROTECTED] . . . Alastair argues

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-20 Thread Alastair Malcolm
- Original Message - From: Günther Greindl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 9:46 PM Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law Dear Nichomachus, decision. If she measures the particle's spin as positive, she will elect to switch cases

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-20 Thread Brent Meeker
Alastair Malcolm wrote: - Original Message - From: Günther Greindl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 9:46 PM Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law Dear Nichomachus, decision. If she measures the particle's spin as positive, she

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-19 Thread Brent Meeker
nichomachus wrote: On Apr 17, 1:21 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you saying that the second law is verified in each of all branches of the (quantum) multiverse? I'm not saying

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-19 Thread Telmo Menezes
Those branches exist even if the experiment is not set up. This follows necessarily from the MWI. Pick any date in history that you like. There must exist fluke branches that have experienced unlikely histories since that time. The example I mentioned previously was no atomic decay

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-19 Thread nichomachus
On Apr 19, 11:51 am, Telmo Menezes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Those branches exist even if the experiment is not set  up. This follows necessarily from the MWI. Pick any date in history  that you like. There must exist fluke branches that have experienced  unlikely histories since that

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-19 Thread Telmo Menezes
How would it work? The point of the suicider experiement is that the suicider is able to prove to himself the reality of MWI by forcing himself to experience only an absurdly low probability set of events. Thus, he demonstrates to the few versions of himself who remain the existence of

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-19 Thread Günther Greindl
Dear Nichomachus, decision. If she measures the particle's spin as positive, she will elect to switch cases, and if she measures it with a negative spin she will keep the one she has. This is because she wants to be sure that, having gotten to this point in the game, there will be at least

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-19 Thread Brent Meeker
nichomachus wrote: On Apr 19, 2:17 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: nichomachus wrote: On Apr 17, 1:21 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you saying that the second law is

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-19 Thread Brent Meeker
Günther Greindl wrote: Dear Nichomachus, decision. If she measures the particle's spin as positive, she will elect to switch cases, and if she measures it with a negative spin she will keep the one she has. This is because she wants to be sure that, having gotten to this point in the game,

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-19 Thread nichomachus
On Apr 19, 4:26 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: nichomachus wrote: On Apr 19, 11:51 am, Telmo Menezes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Those branches exist even if the experiment is not set  up. This follows necessarily from the MWI. Pick any date in history  that you like. There

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-19 Thread Brent Meeker
nichomachus wrote: On Apr 19, 4:26 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: nichomachus wrote: On Apr 19, 11:51 am, Telmo Menezes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Those branches exist even if the experiment is not set up. This follows necessarily from the MWI. Pick any date in

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-18 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi John, Le 17-avr.-08, à 16:48, John Mikes a écrit : Bruno, ashamed, because I decided many times not to barge into topics I do not understand and now I misuse your (and the list's) patience again: you use statistical. - verified in MOST branches. I think my view is not too far away:

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-18 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 17-avr.-08, à 19:45, Telmo Menezes a écrit : On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you saying that the second law is verified in each of all branches of the (quantum) multiverse? I'm not saying that. OK. Sorry. I would say the second law

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-18 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 17-avr.-08, à 18:21, Günther Greindl a écrit : David Deutsch argues in Fabric of Reality that only the Multiverse conserves quantity (not single branches). The rest is probabilistic stuff (see Bruno's post) Yes. And I think Deutsch has the most correct interpretation of Everett's theory

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-18 Thread Telmo Menezes
entropy is increasing as normal because of the preparation and maintenance of the apparatus needed for the experiment. Do you think this makes sense? I am not sure I understand. I do agree with Brent Meker's comment though. If you agree with him, take his answer as mine (hope

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-18 Thread nichomachus
On Apr 16, 11:16 am, Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HI, 2008/4/16, nichomachus [EMAIL PROTECTED]:  On Apr 16, 4:54 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:   Le 16-avr.-08, à 03:24, Russell Standish a écrit :   On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 02:22:23AM +0200, Saibal Mitra

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-18 Thread nichomachus
On first blush, it would seem to be irrelevant to the fact that there are possible histories in which the second law is not found to hold. All the atom and rifle apparatus does is eliminate the living subject in those branches where the decay occurs, leaving the subject alive in only the unlikely

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-18 Thread nichomachus
On Apr 17, 1:21 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Are you saying that the second law is verified in each of all  branches of the (quantum) multiverse? I'm not saying that. I would

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-17 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 17/04/2008, Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You cannot experience death if you define death by the absolute end of your conscious experience. Since you can't be conscious if you're dead nor knowing it (which would require consciousness) by definition, death is not a first

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-17 Thread Telmo Menezes
I would like to argue that in setting this experiment, energy is being expended to prevent the increase in entropy, albeit not in an obvious way. It is a trivial observation that systems may be devised that prevent increases in entropy by paying energy costs. One example is an ice cube in the

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-17 Thread Michael Rosefield
It's not so much the input of energy, it's the production of more entropy where the energy is taken from. On 17/04/2008, Telmo Menezes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to argue that in setting this experiment, energy is being expended to prevent the increase in entropy, albeit not in an

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-17 Thread Telmo Menezes
Yes, you're right. Still I think my argument holds. The production of the rifle, bullet and geiger counter system plus the geiger counter operation should produce more than enough entropy to compensate for the atom not decaying. On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Michael Rosefield [EMAIL

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-17 Thread Bruno Marchal
Are you saying that the second law is verified in each of all branches of the (quantum) multiverse? I would say the second law is statistical, and is verified in most branches. In the MWI applied to quantum field it seems to me that there can be branches with an arbitrarily high number of

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-17 Thread John Mikes
Bruno, ashamed, because I decided many times not to barge into topics I do not understand and now I misuse your (and the list's) patience again: you use statistical. - verified in MOST branches. I think my view is not too far away: statistical in my dictionary means a choice-set of cases selected

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-17 Thread Günther Greindl
Hi, David Deutsch argues in Fabric of Reality that only the Multiverse conserves quantity (not single branches). The rest is probabilistic stuff (see Bruno's post) Cheers, Günther Telmo Menezes wrote: Yes, you're right. Still I think my argument holds. The production of the rifle, bullet

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-17 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you saying that the second law is verified in each of all branches of the (quantum) multiverse? I'm not saying that. I would say the second law is statistical, and is verified in most branches. In the MWI

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-17 Thread Brent Meeker
Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you saying that the second law is verified in each of all branches of the (quantum) multiverse? I'm not saying that. I would say the second law is statistical, and is verified

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-17 Thread Michael Rosefield
To pull a fatuous idea from where the sun doth not shine, what if energy is merely moving 'between universes'; it is conserved just because of statistical balance. On 17/04/2008, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure what source of photon creation you have in mind, but QFT

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-17 Thread Brent Meeker
It's conserved because we require that the Hamiltonian not be explicitly time dependent (we want our laws to apply equally at all times); that and Noether's theorem imply conservation of 4-momentum. Brent Meeker Michael Rosefield wrote: To pull a fatuous idea from where the sun doth not

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-17 Thread Russell Standish
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 06:45:59PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote: I'm just arguing that the experiment with the rifle and the geiger counter does not imply any second law anomaly. Yes, you are forcing your consciousness to move to states where the atom never decays, but if you consider the

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 16-avr.-08, à 03:24, Russell Standish a écrit : On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 02:22:23AM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote: First off, how is it that the MWI does not imply quantum immortality? MWI is just quantum mechanics without the wavefunction collapse postulate. This then implies that

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-16 Thread nichomachus
On Apr 16, 4:54 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 16-avr.-08, à 03:24, Russell Standish a écrit : On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 02:22:23AM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote: First off, how is it that the MWI does not imply quantum immortality? MWI is just quantum mechanics without the

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-16 Thread Quentin Anciaux
HI, 2008/4/16, nichomachus [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Apr 16, 4:54 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 16-avr.-08, à 03:24, Russell Standish a écrit : On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 02:22:23AM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote: First off, how is it that the MWI does not imply quantum

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-16 Thread Michael Rosefield
Even though I believe in QI, I try not to be too blase with my life due to the guilt I'd feel for all sorrow I'd cause my friends family in the worlds I died in. I also think the mathematical laws underlying the universes we are in are also subject to anthropic multiplicity; we don't just filter

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-15 Thread Russell Standish
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:24:12PM -0700, nichomachus wrote: Hi, Russell, Surely the framework of the Many Worlds interpretation would say that the likelyhood of measuring a quantum observable in state A rather than B reflects the number of histories in which the observable is measured as

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-15 Thread Russell Standish
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 02:22:23AM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote: First off, how is it that the MWI does not imply quantum immortality? MWI is just quantum mechanics without the wavefunction collapse postulate. This then implies that after a measurement your wavefuntion will be in a

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-14 Thread Saibal Mitra
Citeren nichomachus [EMAIL PROTECTED]: In the description of the quantum immortality gedanken experiment, a physicist rigs an automatic rifle to a geiger counter to fire into him upon the detection of an atomic decay event from a bit of radioactive material. If the many worlds hypothesis is

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-14 Thread Saibal Mitra
Citeren nichomachus [EMAIL PROTECTED]: In the description of the quantum immortality gedanken experiment, a physicist rigs an automatic rifle to a geiger counter to fire into him upon the detection of an atomic decay event from a bit of radioactive material. If the many worlds hypothesis is

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-14 Thread Michael Rosefield
No, it just means no-one's put enough stress on the 2nd Law yet :) Besides, it's not so much a law as a guideline. Well, a strong statistical tendency On 15/04/2008, nichomachus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the description of the quantum immortality gedanken experiment, a physicist rigs

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-14 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 15/04/2008, Michael Rosefield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, it just means no-one's put enough stress on the 2nd Law yet :) Besides, it's not so much a law as a guideline. Well, a strong statistical tendency As Michael pointed out, the 2nd law is a statistical law, which says that a

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-14 Thread Russell Standish
Further to this, to say that the 2nd law is falsified, we'd have to have circumstances where the less likely outcome ocurred more frequently than the more often. (ie entropy decreases more often than it increases). But this begs the question of what we mean by likelihood of outcome, if not

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-14 Thread nichomachus
On Apr 14, 9:21 pm, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Further to this, to say that the 2nd law is falsified, we'd have to have circumstances where the less likely outcome ocurred more frequently than the more often. (ie entropy decreases more often than it increases). But this begs

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-14 Thread nichomachus
On Apr 14, 6:26 pm, Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Citeren nichomachus [EMAIL PROTECTED]: In the description of the quantum immortality gedanken experiment, a physicist rigs an automatic rifle to a geiger counter to fire into him upon the detection of an atomic decay event from