Re: Quantum accident survivor

From: David Kwinter <david.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:36:11 -0700

I only recently became interested in QM after reading Tegmark's May
2003 SA article. In describing level 3 he used the example of a man
meeting a woman and the two possible outcomes which both play out: (man
and woman get married and have kids) and (man and woman go on their
separate ways alone). The concept of what makes a real quantum branch
irks me. Surely a man standing beside a nuclear explosion will never
survive. A decision in one's mind however almost certainly constitutes
a quantum branch - so maybe after the blast the scientist will wake up
in the mind of himself having just decided not to detonate the bomb
instead of somehow surviving. How much of a car accident survivability
is decided by quantum branches? Maybe driving off a 100' cliff is a
zero-chance event, but deciding to slow to 40mph around the corner on
top of the cliff is the branch the person will revert to.

On Friday, October 31, 2003, at 05:48 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

> I'd be interested to hear of any other versions of this
> everything/immortality theory that people you about, and also of how
> you came up with similar ideas and the responses you had from people
> you told.
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
> Melbourne, Australia.
>

It's hard to carry a conversation about QM with the "real" people in my
life - unless I can get them to read the Tegmark article (which I've
color-copied numerous times but don't think anyone's finished..). Until
the time there's a well packaged believable QI theory - I'll keep my
input on the subject to this list.



David Kwinter
Received on Fri Oct 31 2003 - 12:37:52 PST