RE: Suicide experiment (fwd) from Russell Standish on 1998-11-22 (everything)

From: Russell Standish <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 12:47:09 +1100 (EST)

Actually, another thought I had on the Quantum Theory of Immortality,
was to look at the actual distribution of human lifetimes. There is a
theory about distributions of improbably events, and a write up of it
appeared in one of New Scientist's Inside Science supplements maybe a
year or two ago. The point was that if there was a definite time span
for human life (in a statistical sense), then the distribution of ages
when people die should drop off at least as fast as an exponential. In
reality, the distribution drops off a lot slower - ie people never
seem to die of "old-age" they always die of something - disease,
misadevnture, whatever. This certainly seemed to point to the
possibility of human lives on average being extended considerably more
than the current upper bound (about 120 years or so, if you discount
the accounts in the bible).

Actually, none of this is really necessary from the QTI perspective -
an exponential distribution still has finite probability of generating
any length of lifetime - only one that goes to zero after finite time
would rule out QTI - and as has been argued this case seems rather
implausible.

Cheers

Forwarded message:
> From everything-list-request.domain.name.hidden Fri Nov 20 20:43 EST 1998
> Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 01:28:50 -0800
> Message-Id: <C161B7880426D21198E30020484031ED1B89B0.domain.name.hidden>
> From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
> To: "'Russell Standish'" <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden>
> Cc: "'everything-list.domain.name.hidden'" <everything-list.domain.name.hidden.com>
> Subject: RE: Suicide experiment
> Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 09:27:49 -0000
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
> Resent-Message-ID: <"XzK5X2.0.Je1.IPJLs".domain.name.hidden>
> Resent-From: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> X-Mailing-List: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden> archive/latest/153
> X-Loop: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Precedence: list
> Resent-Sender: everything-list-request.domain.name.hidden
> Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
> boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01BE1468.0BDA0F00"
> Content-Length: 18850
>
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
> this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
>
> ------_=_NextPart_000_01BE1468.0BDA0F00
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> ... or milimetres through your neck. Yes, this is a problem. We could spend
> eternity paralysed and pretty miserable. In fact, we do in some universes.
> But in quite a few - those in which technology continues to develop, i.e. no
> WWIII - we could download ourselves onto a more robust platform.
>
> I agree that there is no reason why there would be a branch in which you are
> certain to die; it is more likely that in all branches you are certain not
> to.
>
> Revised Quantum Theory of Immortality (very basic stuff) attached:
> <<QTI.htm>>
>
> James
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Russell Standish [SMTP:R.Standish.domain.name.hidden]
> > Sent: 19 November 1998 23:40
> > To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> > Subject: Suicide experiment
> >
> > It seems to me that the Tegmark suicide experiment is approached
> > rather idealistically. It is quite possible to survive a gunshot wound
> > to the head. The most likely outcome the researcher performing the
> > Tegmark suicide experiment would experience is a few clicks, followed
> > by a bang, then waking up in a hospital with half her brains blown
> > out!
> >
> > I certainly take the proposition that one can never experience one's
> > own death seriously. My question is whether there are any dead-end
> > paths in the multiverse - ie is it possible for one to experience a
> > situation where it is 100% certain that you will die. I haven't been
> > able to think of one - even if you are on the gullotine with the blade
> > dropping - it is still possible for the blade to jam just millimetres
> > from your neck!
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > Dr. Russell Standish Director
> > High Performance Computing Support Unit,
> > University of NSW Phone 9385 6967
> > Sydney 2052 Fax 9385 7123
> > Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
> > Room 2075, Red Centrer http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
>
> ------_=_NextPart_000_01BE1468.0BDA0F00
> Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
> name="QTI.htm"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Disposition: attachment;
> filename="QTI.htm"
> UNKNOWN: ATT-0-04B9B2C6EF7FD21199170008C7FA664F-Q
> TI.htm
>
> <HTML>
> <HEAD>
> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
> charset=3Dwindows-1252">
> <META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"Microsoft Word 97">
> <TITLE>Research Proposal:</TITLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY TEXT=3D"#000000" LINK=3D"#0000ff">
>
> 	10th November, =
> 1998
> 	
>
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  <DIR>
> <DIR>
>
> ALIGN=3D"CENTER">Does the =91many-worlds=92 interpretation of quantum =
> mechanics imply immortality?
> 
> James Higgo
> 18 Harcourt Terrace
> London SW10 9JR
> ALIGN=3D"CENTER">e-mail james.higgo.domain.name.hidden
> 
>  
>  <DIR>
>
> ALIGN=3D"CENTER">Abstract</DIR>
>
> The Everett =91Many Worlds Interpretation=92 =
> of quantum physics postulates that that all systems evolve according to =
> the Schrödinger equation, whereas the more conventional Copenhagen =
> Interpretation says that this is true until the moment of observation, =
> at which point the equation =91collapses=92. The proposed paper =
> examines some philosophical questions arising from the MWI =
> interpretation. In particular, it synthesises the Tegmark (1997) =
> =91quantum suicide=92 experiment with the Stapp (1998) analysis of the =
> quantum effects on calcium ions in neural synapses, to develop a =
> =91Quantum Theory of Immortality=92 (QTI). 
> ALIGN=3D"JUSTIFY"></DIR>
> </DIR>
>
> The =91Many-Worlds=92 Interpretation of Quantum =
> Physics
> 
> First, a disclaimer for those new to the subject: =
> Niels Bohr, the founder of modern quantum theory said, "Anyone who =
> is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it". And he =
> didn=92t understand the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI). The quantum =
> mechanics (QM) presented here is quite mainstream, even though it still =
> seems crazy to physicists, who have no choice but to accept it. The =
> major assumption I have made is to adopt Everett=92s (1957) MWI, which =
> is just one of half a dozen competing interpretations of QM. According =
> to various polls, MWI and the original 1927 =91Copenhagen =
> Interpretation=92 now have a similar share of the votes among =
> physicists, but many of the =91big names=92 (Hawking, Feynman, Deutsch, =
> Weinberg) are said to (Price, 1995) have subscribed to the MWI.
> 
> The weirdness of quantum physics can be seen in =
> the famous parallel-slit experiment. This shows that individual photons =
> seem to split into two particles which can nevertheless interfere with =
> each other as if they were waves. The =91Copenhagen Interpretation=92 =
> of the phenomena and the equations which describe them, agreed at the =
> 1927 Solvay conference, essentially says that the =91wave packet=92 =
> somehow associated with a particle =91collapses=92 when it is observed =
> =96 this necessitates a relationship between the observer=92s =
> consciousness and the particle. The MWI, on the other hand, holds that =
> the equations used to predict quantum mechanical events continue to =
> hold after observation =96 it is just that all things happen =
> simultaneously, but due to =91decoherence=92 we do not actually see, =
> for example, a radioactive source both decay and not decay. For an =
> explanation of how this implies parallel universes, see Vaidman (1996). =
> 
> 
> There is one way of proving that the MWI is true =
> and the Copenhagen and other interpretations are wrong. Unfortunately, =
> the experimenter can only prove it to himself, and never persuade =
> anyone else of its validity. 
> 
> The Tegmark =91Quantum Suicide=92 =
> experiment
> 
> Tegmark (1997) describes the =91Quantum Suicide =
> Experiment=92 as follows (I have simplified the text and removed the =
> mathematical proofs):
> <DIR>
>
> The apparatus is a "quantum =
> gun" which each time its trigger is pulled measures the =
> z-spin of a particle [particles can be spin up or spin down, =
> seemingly at random]. It is connected to a machine gun that fires a =
> single bullet if the result is "down" and merely makes an =
> audible click if the result is "up"=85. The experimenter =
> first places a sand bag in front of the gun and tells her assistant to =
> pull the trigger ten times. All [QM interpretations] predict that she =
> will hear a seemingly random sequence of shots and duds such as =
> "bang-click-bang-bang-bang-click-click-bang-click-click". She =
> now instructs her assistant to pull the trigger ten more times and =
> places her head in front of the barrel. This time the =
> "shut-up-and calculate" [non-MWI interpretations of QM] have =
> no meaning for an observer in the dead state=85 and the =
> [interpretations] will differ in their predictions. In interpretations =
> where there is an explicit non-unitary collapse, she will be either =
> dead or alive after the first trigger event, so she should expect to =
> perceive perhaps a click or two (if she is moderately lucky), then =
> "game over", nothing at all. In the MWI, on the other hand, =
> the =85 prediction is that [the experimenter] will hear =
> "click" with 100% certainty. When her assistant has =
> completed this unenviable assignment, she will have heard ten clicks, =
> and concluded that the collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics =
> [all but the MWI] are ruled out to a confidence level of =
> 1-0.5n ≈ 99.9%. If she wants to rule them out =
> "ten sigma", she need merely increase n by continuing =
> the experiment a while longer. Occasionally, to verify that the =
> apparatus is working, she can move her head away from the gun and =
> suddenly hear it going off intermittently. Note, however, that [almost =
> all instances] will have her assistant perceiving that he has killed =
> his boss.
> </DIR>
>
> What this means =
> is that, in most universes, there is one less experimenter, but the =
> experimenter herself does not experience death.
> 
> The QTI is formed by reformulating the =91Quantum =
> Suicide=92 experiment so that the movement of a calcium ion in a brain =
> is used as a proxy for the spin-watching =91quantum gun=92, following =
> the work of Stapp.
> 
> Stapp=92s work on =91Quantum Theories of the =
> Mind=92
> 
> Stapp does not accept the MWI, but prefers the =
> Copenhagen Interpretation for reasons =96 essentially matter of =
> philosophical preference =96 given in Stapp (April, 1996) and (July 21, =
> 1998). This does not affect the useful analysis he puts forward =
> concerning the quantum effects inside synapses.
> 
> Stapp shows that quantum effects are indeed =
> important in the way the brain operates. In fact, they must have a =
> dramatic effect on the function if the brain =96 perhaps allowing it to =
> function as a =91quantum computer=92 and take advantage of search =
> algorithms, perhaps similar to that proposed by Grover (1997)
> 
> Stapp=92s (April, 1996) evidence that quantum =
> effects must be present in the brain is as follows:
> <DIR>
>
> a) A calcium ion entering a bouton =
> through a microchannel of diameter x must, by Heisenberg=92s =
> indeterminacy principle, have a momentum spread of hbar/x, and =
> hence a velocity spread of (hbar/x)/m, and hence a spatial =
> spread oin time t, if the particle were freely moving, of =
> t(hbar/x)/m. Taking t to be 200 microseconds, the typical time =
> for the ion to diffuse from the microchannel opening to a triggering =
> site for the release of a vesicle of neurotransmitter, and taking =
> x to be one nanometer, and including a factor of 10-5 =
> for diffusion slowing, one finds the diameter of the wave function to =
> be about 40 times 10-8 centimeters, which is comparable to =
> the size of the calcium ion itself. 
> </DIR>
>
> In other words, =
> it is quite feasible that in some universes a neurotransmitter will =
> activate its target, whereas in others it will not, simply due to the =
> =91Heisenberg uncertainty principle=92.
> 
> This is important when trying to understand how =
> the brain can act as a =91quantum computer=92, and very interesting =
> when we take these ideas in conjunction with Tegmark=92s =
> experiment.
> 
> Integrating Tegmark and Stapp
> 
> Consider a calcium ion which has a 50% =
> probability, according to Schrödinger=92s equations, of activating =
> its target receptor. Imagine that that receptor will make the =
> difference between two possible states of mind: one corresponding with =
> a motorcyclist=92s decision to overtake a car on a dangerous road, and =
> the other corresponding with the opposite decision. Assume that the =
> overtaking manoeuvre would be fatal. 
> 
> The motorcyclist is the experimenter in =
> Tegmark=92s quantum suicide. According to the MWI prediction, the =
> cyclist will perceive that he has made the decision corresponding to =
> the staying-alive outcome with 100% certainty. Of course, onlookers in =
> 50% of universes will see a messy accident. 
> 
> The Quantum Theory of Immortality developed here =
> avers that all life-or-death decisions correspond with the same quantum =
> mechanical equations. In all life-or-death decisions, the =
> =91experimenter=92 finds that he has chosen life.
> 
> Further implications
> 
> Deutsch (1997) argues that it follows from MWI =
> that anything possible exists =96 somewhere in the =91multiverse=92. =
> If this is true, we can say that there are many universes (but a very =
> tiny proportion of the multiverse) where you, dear reader, are a =
> billion years old.
> 
> Could it follow that you, the experimenter=92s =
> consciousness, will inevitably =91end up=92 in one of those universes? =
> If so, we are immortal =96 from our own point of view.
> 
> Problems with Quantum Theory of Immortality
> 
> The QTI rests on some contentious premises: =
> Deutsch=92s development of the Everett =91many-worlds=92 hypothesis; =
> the Tegmark =91quantum suicide=92 experiment, Stapp=92s work on quantum =
> effects on the brain and, most tentatively, the idea that the specific =
> case of the =91quantum gun=92 can be generalised into any life-or-death =
> scenario.
> 
>  
> Bibliography
> 
> <OL>
>
> <LI>Deutsch, David, The Fabric of Reality, (Penguin Books, =
> 1997)</LI>
> <LI>DeWitt, B. S. and N. Graham, eds., The Many Worlds =
> Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, (Princeton University Press, =
> Princeton, 1973).</LI>
> <LI>Grover, L. K, =91Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle =
> in a haystack=92, Phys. Rev. Lett 79, 325-328 (1997) =
> </LI>
> <LI>Price, Michael Clive, Many-Worlds FAQ (Website, =
> 1995)</LI>
> <LI>Stapp, Henry P., Quantum Ontology and Mind-Matter Synthesis =
> (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, July 21 1998)</LI>
> <LI>Stapp, Henry P., Science of Consciousness and the Hard =
> Problem (Proceedings of the Conference Toward a Science of =
> Consciousness, University of Arizona, April 8-13,1996)</LI>
> <LI>Steane, Andrew, Quantum Computing (Preprint, July 1997)</LI>
> <LI>Tegmark, Max, =91The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Many =
> Worlds or Many Worlds=92, (Preprint, September 15, 1997) </LI></OL>
>
> <DIR>
> <DIR>
> <DIR>
> <DIR>
>
> Appendix: e-debate on the QTI, 16-17th November =
> 1998
> 
> Rainer Plaga: 	On your quantum immortality: you're right about =
> traffic accidents and the like. But I would guess that the fact that =
> nobody ever gets older than, say, 300 years is a deterministic law of =
> nature, or in other words that there is no single branch in which a =
> 300 year old James exists. Isn't that plausible?
> 
> James =
> Higgo:	Thanks, Rainer.
> 	The fact that nobody over 300 exists in this universe is =
> unsurprising. But this is one of quite a few universes. And perhaps =
> they're hiding. Will you concede there is a one in a thousand billion =
> chance that you will live over 300 years?
> 	Regards
> 	James
>
> Rainer Plaga:	I don't =
> know what the chance for a branch with a 300 year old James is. But how =
> do you know it is not equal 0?
> 	Rainer
> 
> James Higgo:	 COLOR=3D"#0000ff">Anything that's possible exists, according to David =
> Deutsch. Sorry to appeal to his authority.
> 	James
> 
> Rainer Plaga:	Yeah, anything *that's possible* but I guess =
> nobody knows whether a 300 year old James *is possible* according to =
> the laws of nature.
> 	Rainer
> 
> James Higgo:	 COLOR=3D"#0000ff">But it's possible that all the molecules in my body =
> just rearranged themselves by chance into the form of a teapot, so it's =
> certainly possible that you don't die.
> 	James
> 
> Rainer Plaga	Hello James,
> 	I see what you are saying now. Probably you are right. =
> Unfortunately even when we're 300 years old we will have a hard time to =
> convince our fellow ``branchians'' that the reason for our extreme =
> longevity is MWI! (Analogous to Max's experiment). Could there be =
> something extremely improbable that led to the survival of the human =
> race? (Your idea's analogy to my A-bomb experiment) An example would =
> be: if we could prove that it is extremely improbable that a time span =
> of 70 million years goes by without a nearby supernova that would wipe =
> out the human race. This would be an argument in favour of MWI. This =
> was only an example, one can show that it is quite probable that no =
> nearby SN happens within 70 million years. 
> 	But perhaps we can find an example that works. Actually: this =
> would also explain the absence of extraterrestrial intelligence =
> (Fermi's paradox).
> 	All the best Rainer
> 
> James Higgo:	Some fine ideas. So I take it you're a convert, O =
> Immortal one!
> 	James
>
> Rainer Plaga:	I =
> believe
> 	Actually there is a corollary: It is impossible to commit =
> suicide. Each time you try you will find that some stupid accident or =
> strange improbable force kept you from doing it. 
> 	Rainer
> 
> James Higgo: 	 COLOR=3D"#0000ff">Absolutely. And you will miraculously survive =
> terminal cancer.</DIR>
> </DIR>
> </DIR>
> </DIR>
> </BODY>
> </HTML>
>
> ------_=_NextPart_000_01BE1468.0BDA0F00--
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit,
University of NSW Phone 9385 6967
Sydney 2052 Fax 9385 7123
Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Sun Nov 22 1998 - 17:40:35 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:06 PST