Yes, but I don't know of any process that can kill a person with
absolute certainty. If you know of one, then you have a counter
example to the Quantum Theory of Immortality. I'm sure there would be
a few people in this discussion group who would be interested.
Cheers
Forwarded message:
> From james.higgo.domain.name.hidden Thu Dec 10 20:27 EST 1998
> Message-Id: <C161B7880426D21198E30020484031ED1B8A66.domain.name.hidden>
> From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
> To: "'Russell Standish'" <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden>
> Subject: RE: experiments and MWI (fwd)
> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 09:17:27 -0000
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Length: 8980
>
> Restate the Tegmark experiment so that instead of a machine gun there is
> something that instantly and certainly obliterates you. In any other
> situation, you will always have a branch leading away in which you are
> alive, right up until the instant of death.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Russell Standish [SMTP:R.Standish.domain.name.hidden]
> > Sent: 09 December 1998 21:41
> > To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> > Subject: RE: experiments and MWI (fwd)
> >
> > In Tegmark's experiment you would know if you had a quantum machine
> > gun firing at you - because you would be damaged by it, and would feel
> > the bullets, although not killed by it. The would also be other human
> > beings looking on who would know that there was a machine gun, and
> > congratulate you on your miraculous ability to survive.
> >
> > In the case of vacuum decays, surely these would have some kind of
> > distribution of energies, and some of the lower valued decays (say of
> > the order of the KT event, or even more wimpish at about the level of
> > a Nuclear Amageddon) would tend to be noticed by the surviving
> > concious observers.
> >
> > Unless the distribution is vanishingly small at these lower energies,
> > observational experience would rule out events of this nature.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Forwarded message:
> > > From james.higgo.domain.name.hidden Wed Dec 9 21:05 EST 1998
> > > Message-Id: <C161B7880426D21198E30020484031ED1B8A57.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: experiments and MWI (fwd)
> > > Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 09:55:32 -0000
> > > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > > X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
> > > Content-Type: text/plain;
> > > charset="iso-8859-1"
> > > Content-Length: 6017
> > >
> > > Precisely - now substitute 'vacuum decay' for 'machine gun' in Max
> > Tegmark's
> > > quantum suicide experiment, and you see that it would not matter if we
> > were
> > > in suce a region.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Russell Standish [SMTP:R.Standish.domain.name.hidden]
> > > > Sent: 08 December 1998 21:50
> > > > To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> > > > Subject: RE: experiments and MWI (fwd)
> > > >
> > > > These vacuum decays must involve energies that make it negligibly
> > > > possible for any human observers (out of 5x10^10) to survive -
> > > > otherwise they would have been observed already. That's one hell of a
> > > > bang - makes the KT event look like an afternoon tea party.
> > > >
> > > > I suspect the anthropic principle keeps us out of such region of the
> > > > universe, in which case we're unlikely to see the SM parameters having
> > > > those values.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Forwarded message:
> > > > > From everything-list-request.domain.name.hidden Wed Dec 9 00:11 EST 1998
> > > > > Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 04:57:11 -0800
> > > > > Message-Id:
> > <C161B7880426D21198E30020484031ED1B8A44.domain.name.hidden>
> > > > > From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
> > > > > To: "'Rainer Plaga'" <plaga.domain.name.hidden>
> > > > > Cc: "'avoid-l.domain.name.hidden'" <avoid-l.domain.name.hidden.edu>,
> > > > > "'everything-list.domain.name.hidden'" <everything-list.domain.name.hidden.com>
> > > > > Subject: RE: experiments and MWI
> > > > > Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 12:55:29 -0000
> > > > > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > > > > X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
> > > > > Resent-Message-ID: <"I9yFK2.0.Lj2.c8IRs".domain.name.hidden>
> > > > > Resent-From: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> > > > > X-Mailing-List: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden> archive/latest/176
> > > > > X-Loop: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> > > > > Precedence: list
> > > > > Resent-Sender: everything-list-request.domain.name.hidden
> > > > > Content-Type: text/plain
> > > > > Content-Length: 3414
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi, Rainer.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am pleased to be in a universe in which your plane did not crash.
> > > > >
> > > > > On your first point, thanks - agreed. Also, Vic seems to imply that
> > > > there
> > > > > are two types of system - quantum and non-quantum. A 'quantum
> > effect'
> > > > can
> > > > > make a difference to a hot, wet classical system. I have cc'd this
> > to
> > > > Vic
> > > > > Stenger's list.
> > > > >
> > > > > On point 2, I have to concede that you are right, and we must hope
> > that
> > > > an
> > > > > experiment such as the one you proposed could be undertaken to prove
> > the
> > > > > valifity of MWI. That doesn't mean that the exploration of the
> > > > consequences
> > > > > of MWI is not a useful pursuit here and now.
> > > > >
> > > > > On point 3, my quantum theory of immortality would make vacuum
> > decays,
> > > > no
> > > > > matter how common, imperceptible to us as we continue in those
> > universes
> > > > in
> > > > > which there has been no decay. This is an interesting avenue to
> > pursue.
> > > > >
> > > > > James
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Rainer Plaga [SMTP:plaga.domain.name.hidden]
> > > > > > Sent: 08 December 1998 12:29
> > > > > > To: james.higgo.domain.name.hidden
> > > > > > Subject: experiments and MWI
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello James,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1.
> > > > > > Vic's criticism seems justified in the
> > > > > > sense that you didn't prove immortality,
> > > > > > only extreme longevity seems very plausible.
> > > > > > On the other hand I do not understand his
> > > > > > point about mixtures. There are no
> > > > > > ``true mixtures'' in the MWI, only one
> > > > > > pure state of which we perceive a very small
> > > > > > part. So he seems to be outside
> > > > > > strict MWI with his argument.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2.
> > > > > > I thought about your point that
> > > > > > you don't need experimental evidence
> > > > > > in favor of MWI, that it's (undisputed) elegance
> > > > > > is sufficient.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the end I find this point of view
> > > > > > (which seems close to the one of Max)
> > > > > > sterile, it can hamper progress.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Imagine people would have been content
> > > > > > in 1890 with the ``elegance'' of Boltzmann's
> > > > > > indirect thermodynamical evidence in favour
> > > > > > of atoms.
> > > > > > The wish to find direct evidence
> > > > > > in favor of single atoms was an important
> > > > > > driving force in the early days of quantum physics.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In other words: I'm convinced that direct
> > > > > > evidence for MWI will lead to a qualitatively new
> > > > > > understanding of the quantum world.
> > > > > > I doubt that purely theoretical or philosophical
> > > > > > work on the MWI will ever lead to this, the
> > > > > > problems are too complicated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3.
> > > > > > Counterexample to a theorem ``direct experimental evidence
> > > > > > against alternatives to the MWI'' can't be found
> > > > > > (like one Max seems to have in mind: ``Copenhagen
> > > > > > always leads to the same phenomenology'').
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There exist parameter regions in the Standard Model
> > > > > > of particle physics
> > > > > > where the vacuum is metastable. Single
> > > > > > quantum events, which raise the energy density
> > > > > > (e.g. particle collisions) then lead
> > > > > > to the decay of our vacuum to a more
> > > > > > stable form: this would kill humanity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Normally this is taken as evidence that
> > > > > > the SM does not have such parameters.
> > > > > > In the MWI this argument does not hold
> > > > > > of course. Each vacuum decay
> > > > > > has only a certain probability, so there
> > > > > > are always surviving humanities.
> > > > > > (This is very close to my ``atom bomb''
> > > > > > alteration of Max's suicide test of MWI).
> > > > > > In other words: if future research on the SM
> > > > > > would prove that the parameters are such
> > > > > > that the vacuum is metastable, this would
> > > > > > be direct (and non byzantine or
> > > > > > macabre) evidence for the MWI.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course it might well be that such paramters are not found,
> > > > > > however any general theorem about the untestability of MWI
> > > > > > is doubtful.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All the best Rainer
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > 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
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Fri Dec 11 1998 - 20:36:36 PST