Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Centre for Applied Eschatology

appliedeschatology.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 73 posts

Re: Centre for Applied Eschatology

#41

Post by WJW »

karl-j wrote: post #32
thret wrote: post #22

This reminded me of: QuantumBogoSort a quantum sorting algorithm which can sort any list in O(1), using the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics. It works as follows: 1. Quantumly randomise the list, such that there is no way of knowing what order the list is in until it is observed. This will divide the universe into O(n!) universes; however, the division has no cost, as it happens constantly anyway. 2.…

So let’s say I’ve got step 2. figured out with vacuum decay or similar, how do I check if the list is sorted in O(1) to determine if I destroy the universe or not? And given that the list being sorted is a one in n! chance, often enormously less likely than than hardware malfunction, wouldn’t the algorithm mostly produce malfunctions rather than sorted lists? (Genuinely curious if I’ve got the right understanding of…

Checking if a list is sorted is O(N) if you do it in a single thread since you'd have to check all the elements. If you can do it with a prefix sum or something, it should be possible to do it in O(log N) over many cores.

Btw, the quantum bogosort also assumes that destroying the universe is O(1), which seems unlikely. Clearly, when sorting a bigger list there is more information in the universe (ie the list). Since information and energy seem to have some equivalence in quantum dynamics, is does not seem unreasonable that destroying a universe with more information in it would take longer and so destroying the universe cannot be O(1).

Re: Centre for Applied Eschatology

#42

Post by joshxyz »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #30
ineedasername wrote: post #25

As with most technical challenges, scale is always an issue. Depopulating a city is relatively easy and achievable with conventional bombs. A small country would only be moderately more difficult with nuclear weapons. After this, things get much harder. Sure, enough nukes could finish off the human race, but that's out of the price range for most shoppers in this market. In the long term, climate change might do it,…

> Sure, enough nukes could finish off the human race, but that's out of the price range for most shoppers in this market. I dunno, there's plenty of nukes that are ready and waiting and have been paid for. I wonder what would be more effective; nuking the targets that have been designated by various states already since the cold war, or piling up all the nukes, maybe a few km underground, and trigger a cataclysmic ev…

Cant we just attach all nukes to one side of the moon, make it explode so hard that it pushes the moon toward the earth that it hits like a cool asteroid? Haha

Re: Centre for Applied Eschatology

#43

Post by nullsense »

ineedasername wrote: post #25

As with most technical challenges, scale is always an issue. Depopulating a city is relatively easy and achievable with conventional bombs. A small country would only be moderately more difficult with nuclear weapons. After this, things get much harder. Sure, enough nukes could finish off the human race, but that's out of the price range for most shoppers in this market. In the long term, climate change might do it,…

In my head I read that as a monologue given by Rick from Rick and Morty. Made it very entertaining.

Re: Centre for Applied Eschatology

#45

Post by cholmon »

There's an interesting scifi book called Manifold:Time by Stephen Baxter, that features an organization called Eschatology, Inc. It presents a very unique perspective on (hastening) Doomsday.

Side note: I was convinced at first that the author patterned the main character, Reid Malenfant, after Elon Musk, until I checked and saw the thing was published back in 1999.

Re: Centre for Applied Eschatology

#46

Post by cevi »

ineedasername wrote: post #25

As with most technical challenges, scale is always an issue. Depopulating a city is relatively easy and achievable with conventional bombs. A small country would only be moderately more difficult with nuclear weapons. After this, things get much harder. Sure, enough nukes could finish off the human race, but that's out of the price range for most shoppers in this market. In the long term, climate change might do it,…

Reminds me very strongly of the opening lines of https://qntm.org/destroy

Re: Centre for Applied Eschatology

#47

Post by tomrod »

thret wrote: post #22

This reminded me of: QuantumBogoSort a quantum sorting algorithm which can sort any list in O(1), using the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics. It works as follows: 1. Quantumly randomise the list, such that there is no way of knowing what order the list is in until it is observed. This will divide the universe into O(n!) universes; however, the division has no cost, as it happens constantly anyway. 2.…

Eh. You have to assess whether the list is sorted before you destroy the universe, thus increasing the total algorithm runtime complexity.

Re: Centre for Applied Eschatology

#48

Post by swyx »

tomrod wrote: post #47
thret wrote: post #22

This reminded me of: QuantumBogoSort a quantum sorting algorithm which can sort any list in O(1), using the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics. It works as follows: 1. Quantumly randomise the list, such that there is no way of knowing what order the list is in until it is observed. This will divide the universe into O(n!) universes; however, the division has no cost, as it happens constantly anyway. 2.…

Eh. You have to assess whether the list is sorted before you destroy the universe, thus increasing the total algorithm runtime complexity.

That operation is also left as an exercise to the reader

Re: Centre for Applied Eschatology

#49

Post by zingermc »

tomrod wrote: post #47
thret wrote: post #22

This reminded me of: QuantumBogoSort a quantum sorting algorithm which can sort any list in O(1), using the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics. It works as follows: 1. Quantumly randomise the list, such that there is no way of knowing what order the list is in until it is observed. This will divide the universe into O(n!) universes; however, the division has no cost, as it happens constantly anyway. 2.…

Eh. You have to assess whether the list is sorted before you destroy the universe, thus increasing the total algorithm runtime complexity.

Yeah, sounds like an O(n) sort to me.

Re: Centre for Applied Eschatology

#50

Post by michaelmior »

WJW wrote: post #41
karl-j wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So let’s say I’ve got step 2. figured out with vacuum decay or similar, how do I check if the list is sorted in O(1) to determine if I destroy the universe or not? And given that the list being sorted is a one in n! chance, often enormously less likely than than hardware malfunction, wouldn’t the algorithm mostly produce malfunctions rather than sorted lists? (Genuinely curious if I’ve got the right understanding of…

Checking if a list is sorted is O(N) if you do it in a single thread since you'd have to check all the elements. If you can do it with a prefix sum or something, it should be possible to do it in O(log N) over many cores. Btw, the quantum bogosort also assumes that destroying the universe is O(1), which seems unlikely. Clearly, when sorting a bigger list there is more information in the universe (ie the list). Since…

> Clearly, when sorting a bigger list there is more information in the universe (ie the list).

I don't think this is necessarily true. You could argue that the list is simply a bigger fraction of the information in the universe.

Post reply on HN