OK - you are in Universe 1. That universe is connected to Universes 1.1,
1.2, 1.3.... 1.infinity by a relationship which we conventionally call "one
planck-time". Let us say that in some of those univeses (1.a) you are
alive, and in the others, (1.b), you are dead. The mechanism doesn't really
matter. Having a faulty machine gun or a death wish on a motorcycle, or a
Tegmark experiment or whatever, there will always be some where you live,
and therefore are conscious of, and soem where you die, and therefore they
are immaterial to you.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Standish [SMTP:R.Standish.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: 12 December 1998 04:28
> To: everthing-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: RE: experiments and MWI (fwd)
>
> 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>
> > > > > > 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 Mon Dec 14 1998 - 02:41:07 PST