Live data from Hacker News

Disprove quantum immortality without risking your life (2019)

vankessel.io

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: Disprove quantum immortality without risking your life (2019)

#41
post #29
post #11

This is a really nice argument and I hope that Kevin and others continue to pursue it. However, I think there is a subtle flaw in the presented argument that is parallel to issues illuminated by Goedel's incompleteness theorem. The problem, I believe, is with the assertion: > 1. The many-worlds interpretation is true. > 2. Consciousness experiences the reality in which it lives the longest. > If all the previous assu…

> you could (and likely would) walk around taking obviously foolish risks without ever experiencing any consequences Only things that are random on a quantum level cause world splitting. Walking in front of a car for example is not random on a quantum level and would not cause multi-world effects. In the popular consciousness multiple worlds means every single possibility exists. This is not true! In fact there are v…

It’s my understanding that radioactive decay is a quantum random.

Radioactive decay emits particles that can interfere with dna and cause cancer.

So some number of people would have/not have cancer in these many worlds. Not all these people would have profound impacts, but the background noise would start to add up quickly.

Re: Disprove quantum immortality without risking your life (2019)

#42
post #11

This is a really nice argument and I hope that Kevin and others continue to pursue it. However, I think there is a subtle flaw in the presented argument that is parallel to issues illuminated by Goedel's incompleteness theorem. The problem, I believe, is with the assertion: > 1. The many-worlds interpretation is true. > 2. Consciousness experiences the reality in which it lives the longest. > If all the previous assu…

Thank you. I really like the point you are making, but I am unsure about a lack of cause and effect. When I think of cause and effect, I think of it as taking the state of the universe from state t+0 to t+1 using the laws of physics. All of it being deterministic, except for quantum mechanics. This indeterminism in QM creating the branches allowing one to escape death. Couldn't believing in quantum immortality be com…

I find the whole QI following so weird... Do people really argue that QM can provide cartoon-like effects like a convenient truck under the bridge?

Do people really argue that conscience is so special that the universe refuses to end one?

The universe don't differentiate between a dead human and a living one. From a QM point of view, both body masses, correctly placed, can work as an "observer" to cause waveform collapse.

Re: Disprove quantum immortality without risking your life (2019)

#43
> Consciousness experiences the reality in which it lives the longest.

This is a huge straw-man. The claim is that it is that it takes a probability distribution that inherits from the underlying multiversal one, but weighted by your existence. All this proves is that the none of the n-bit random messages will cause you to immediately divide into at least 2^n copies of yourself.

For more interesting discussion on ideas in this space, see

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument

Re: Disprove quantum immortality without risking your life (2019)

#44
I would say that this test is especially vulnerable to error, because all the auxiliary hypotheses being tested. The problem here is known as the Duhem-Quine thesis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem%E2%80%93Quine_thesis

> The Duhem–Quine thesis, also called the Duhem–Quine problem, after Pierre Duhem and Willard Van Orman Quine, is that it is impossible to test a scientific hypothesis in isolation, because an empirical test of the hypothesis requires one or more background assumptions (also called auxiliary assumptions or auxiliary hypotheses). In recent decades the set of associated assumptions supporting a thesis sometimes is called a bundle of hypotheses.

I’m not going to enumerate the auxiliary hypotheses being tested, but this is a particularly thorny problem in the philosophy of science, and it becomes less tractable as the problems you are solving become more complicated (like this one).

My personal feeling is that the philosophy of science, as a field, is still quite immature.

Re: Disprove quantum immortality without risking your life (2019)

#45
post #21

Can you prove a negative?

1. I think I'm conscious. Therefore, under the axiom "Consciousness experiences the reality in which it lives the longest." I must be experiencing the reality in which I live the longest.

2. I am not the best version of me. I'm 40 pounds overweight, I have poor sleep habits, I wheeze going up stairs, I don't wear sunscreen when going outside in the summer. There is strong evidence that all of these things shorten my life. There's a couple of moles I occasionally worry about yet I do nothing.

3. So either the versions of me that keep perfectly fit, exercise just the right amount to maintain health without putting too much strain on the body, wear sunscreen, and keep a regular sleep cycle of an appropriate duration are inevitably doomed to die young (is there a 100% chance of a famine across all quantum worlds I exist in, where I'll need to survive off of my body fat for 3+ months?), I am not actually conscious, I just think I am(?), or the proposition "Consciousness experiences the reality in which it lives the longest." must be false.

(Now obviously, you can't take my word for me being conscious, because that's exactly what a p-zombie would say, but you can ask yourself if you are conscious and if there is any way you can be better than you are now; if the answer is "yes" to both questions and you still believe in quantum immortality, you should start trying to figure out what inevitable catastrophe your life-shortening vices make you suited to survive, more than not having those life-shortening vices.)

Re: Disprove quantum immortality without risking your life (2019)

#48
post #11

This is a really nice argument and I hope that Kevin and others continue to pursue it. However, I think there is a subtle flaw in the presented argument that is parallel to issues illuminated by Goedel's incompleteness theorem. The problem, I believe, is with the assertion: > 1. The many-worlds interpretation is true. > 2. Consciousness experiences the reality in which it lives the longest. > If all the previous assu…

> Afterall, if you absolutely knew that quantum immortality was true, then you could (and likely would) walk around taking obviously foolish risks without ever experiencing any consequences.

On the contrary, wouldn't it be the case that all the "yous" that did such a thing died, leaving only the "yous" that attempted only a small fraction of risky events? Just because many worlds is true, it doesn't mean all possibly infinite combinations of things also exist (e.g. PI is infinite, but it doesn't contain all possible combinations of numbers, nor itself).

Re: Disprove quantum immortality without risking your life (2019)

#49
post #11

This is a really nice argument and I hope that Kevin and others continue to pursue it. However, I think there is a subtle flaw in the presented argument that is parallel to issues illuminated by Goedel's incompleteness theorem. The problem, I believe, is with the assertion: > 1. The many-worlds interpretation is true. > 2. Consciousness experiences the reality in which it lives the longest. > If all the previous assu…

Thank you. I really like the point you are making, but I am unsure about a lack of cause and effect. When I think of cause and effect, I think of it as taking the state of the universe from state t+0 to t+1 using the laws of physics. All of it being deterministic, except for quantum mechanics. This indeterminism in QM creating the branches allowing one to escape death. Couldn't believing in quantum immortality be com…

"Couldn't believing in quantum immortality be compatible with this? You could do things like firing a gun to your head, and it would misfire every time. You could jump off a building and would land in a passing open-topped garbage truck full of soft material. You'd experience all sorts of crazy coincidences, but all of them plausibly deniable and within the framework of cause and effect as we know it."

I think one of the several issues I have with this article is that you're measuring survival in human terms, not quantum terms. One of the secret constraints in the quantum suicide thought experiment is that your method of death must be literally 100% guaranteed, and ideally for the argument, instantaneous from the point of view of your consciousness. (That is, for our consciousness's sake, I don't think Planck time is particularly relevant; more human time frames are relevant.) Sometimes this is expressed as sitting next to an atom bomb rather than just a gun.

But, even then, as a pragmatic matter, a real person trying to perform this experiment would need to be concerned about the quantum probability that the bomb does indeed go off, but leaves them maimed because it didn't exactly explode fully, but the explosives half-detonate and the uranium goes only a bit critical, spraying you with radiation and seriously injuring you but not actually killing you. As you sit there next to your quantum number generator, you are indeed systematically pruning the quantum state space of the worlds in you do actually die, but the remaining quantum state space has a great deal more than just "you get up and turn off the quantum number generator once you are satisfied".

Similarly, a gun can do a lot more than just fire and kill you, or not fire and leave you harmless. It could fire, and put what should be a fatal hole in your head, but the bare minimum quantum events occur to keep you just barely conscious.

As you prune away all the likelihoods, you're amplifying the probably of everything other than what you pruned away, not just the human-conceivable events. The harder and more successfully you prune, the weirder what's left over gets. Given that you've set up a situation in which you've got a gun aimed at your head or an atom bomb or what have you, those "weird" situations are likely to be unpleasant.

Of course, if QI and the multiple worlds hypothesis is correct, this all happens anyhow all the time, and seeing our family or friends just suddenly explode for no reason is something we are literally experiencing all the time, just with such a low probability that it hasn't happened yet. But, somewhere in the great multiverse, there's a set of people who read this message and it is immediately followed by, say, their left hand just disintegrating. Take heart... for some yet smaller fraction of you, it will also immediately fix itself.

Re: Disprove quantum immortality without risking your life (2019)

#50
There seems to be a gap in the argument between step 2 and steps onwards from 4.

The experiment assumes that, given the opportunity, the universe will give a person the knowledge of how to extend their life. But of course that knowledge could have been given at any point in their life up to then, and at any point afterwards. Why hasn't a computer glitch emailed you the contents of an immortality potion before now?

The answer I would suggest is that this is not the optimum moment for life extension, and there's no reason the universe has to do anything if a better local minimum can occur.

My corollary for this experiment would be:

4. There exists a message in the encoding that can extend one's life... but that message will only be given if

a) Having the message actually results in the timeline that does what is needed, and

b) There is not in fact a more optimum time that the universe might use later on.

The problem is that absent points a and b, the experiment proves nothing. It could well be that you wouldn't have correctly responded to any message given here, but instead the universe will choose a moment when you're 65 to announce a life extension drug has just been released into the upper atmosphere.

Post reply on HN