- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 11:23:20 -0000

Fantastic stuff! Someone who has 100% the same understanding of the

situation as I do!

But surely, then, Bruno, you also wonder about the issue of whether we will

ever experience death. I reiterate what I discussed with Max above: no

matter how 'dirty the tunnel', there will always be subsequent branches in

which your brain regenerates fully. Can you shed any light on this issue?

The point you make about your relatives grieving in most universes is

accurate and this is the only reason I can think of (bar my genetic

programminmg, and my genes can take a jump) for not indulging in quantum

suicide.

*> -----Original Message-----
*

*> From: Marchal [SMTP:marchal.domain.name.hidden]
*

*> Sent: 12 March 1999 11:12
*

*> To: Hal Finney; everything-list.domain.name.hidden; jqm1584.domain.name.hidden.ACF.NYU.EDU
*

*> Subject: Re: Amoeba croaks -
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> Hal Finney wrote :
*

*>
*

*> >It seems that there are two ways to increase the measure of copies
*

*> >and near-copies of yourself which have favorable experiences.
*

*> >
*

*> >One is to try to make good decisions. Some people say that in a
*

*> >many-worlds model decisions are irrelevant, since everything will happen.
*

*> >However this ignores the fact that different branches have different
*

*> >measures. Even though we know that all things will happen, by making
*

*> >good decisions we increase the fraction which have good outcomes, thereby
*

*> >increasing the measure of those instances of ourselves which are having
*

*> >favorable experiences.
*

*>
*

*> I quite agree with that.
*

*>
*

*> >The other method is by killing yourself when things go wrong.
*

*> >This approach is more controversial, but many people seem to have an
*

*> >instinctive understanding of its value. People often do kill themselves
*

*> >when things get sufficiently bad. By doing so they are increasing the
*

*> >fraction of their near-copies which have good experiences. They are not
*

*> >thinking in those terms, but that is the effect of their actions.
*

*>
*

*> I still agree, but here it is necessary to be cautious. Suppose that my
*

*> goal is to prove Goldbach conjecture (or any unproved big mathematical
*

*> conjecture). I am not very gifted in mathematics, so I decide to proceed
*

*> in the following way. I use a big array of quantum particles, let us say
*

*> 2^32 particles. Each one is prepared in a superposition like 1/sqr(2)(O +
*

*> 1). Then I read (measure) each particle following the order given by the
*

*> array, and I decode the result in the computer-keyboard-base. In case I
*

*> understand what I read as a proof of Goldbach conjecture : I am done. If
*

*> not, then I kill myself with a gun (let us say).
*

*>
*

*> Let us suppose now that there is no such proof. With MWI, I will survive
*

*> ANYWAY. For example I will survive because in some "worlds" the bullet
*

*> will go through by brain without affecting it thanks to the tunnel
*

*> effect. Unfortunately, in the majority of the world where I survive by
*

*> tunnel effect, my brain will be damaged because the probability of a
*

*> clean tunnel effect is little compare to a less clean tunnel effect.
*

*>
*

*> In case there is a proof of G. conjecture less than 2^32 bits, then I can
*

*> expect to survive in good shape in a world with the proof ONLY IF the
*

*> probability to survive (even in bad shape) by tunnel effect is much less
*

*> than 1/2^32.
*

*>
*

*> To sum up : to use succesfully the quantum suicide, you need to compare
*

*> carefully the probability of your gain with the probability to survive
*

*> annihilation.
*

*> (and of course you must realize that according to your friends your
*

*> quantum suicide is just suicide, and there are infinitely other ethical
*

*> problem).
*

*>
*

*> (Note : More on this in my 1998 PhD Thesis, or in my 1988 or 1991 paper,
*

*> which I intend to put on a WEB page as soon as possible. In my thesis I
*

*> show that the MWI is directly deductible from the thesis "I am a
*

*> machine", so that empirical quantum mechanics is a confirmation of
*

*> mechanism. I show that most of the qualitative aspect of quantum
*

*> mechanics (indeterminism, mon-locality, etc.) are derivable from
*

*> arithmetic + mechanism.
*

*> Consciousness including the appearance of matter emerge from arithmetical
*

*> truth. This give a kind of "many (computationnal) histories, no
*

*> universes" interpretation of number theory.
*

*>
*

*> Bruno Marchal
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> =====================================================================
*

*> | Bruno MARCHAL Phone : +32 (0)2 6502711 |
*

*> | Universite Libre de Bruxelles Fax : +32 (0)2 6502715 |
*

*> | Prive : +32 (0)2 3439666 |
*

*> | Avenue F.D. Roosevelt, 50 |
*

*> | IRIDIA, CP 194/6 |
*

*> | B-1050 BRUSSELS Email : marchal.domain.name.hidden |
*

*> | Belgium URL : http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/ |
*

*> =====================================================================
*

*>
*

Received on Tue Jan 12 1999 - 03:26:25 PST

Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 11:23:20 -0000

Fantastic stuff! Someone who has 100% the same understanding of the

situation as I do!

But surely, then, Bruno, you also wonder about the issue of whether we will

ever experience death. I reiterate what I discussed with Max above: no

matter how 'dirty the tunnel', there will always be subsequent branches in

which your brain regenerates fully. Can you shed any light on this issue?

The point you make about your relatives grieving in most universes is

accurate and this is the only reason I can think of (bar my genetic

programminmg, and my genes can take a jump) for not indulging in quantum

suicide.

Received on Tue Jan 12 1999 - 03:26:25 PST

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