Live data from Hacker News

Disprove quantum immortality without risking your life (2019)

vankessel.io

61–67 of 67 posts

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

#61
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 coll…

Well, yes. Those examples were chosen to be cartoonish stereotypes. Extremely statistically unlikely events would look... strange, to say the least. Sort of like the flapping of a butterfly's wings resulting in a hurricane.

Also there has been some discussion about how quantum events would only affect the microscopic and the macroscopic would remain the same. This is false, quantum events can only occur in the microscopic, but their effects can propagate to the macroscopic in ways beyond our comprehension. Take the experiment itself, the outcome of a quantum event propagates to the life or death of a human being.

Lastly there have also been remarks about how death needs to be guaranteed because QI only promises consciousness not health or a lack of suffering. I will address that here too. That is a perfectly fine way of viewing QI but there is a distinction we should formalize to make it clear.

Greedy QI and Perfect QI.

Greedy QI just branches from the present moment to whichever consciousness will persist. This can result in a local optimum where you are maimed but alive.

Perfect QI always picks the best branch point of every present moment to account for all future possibilities. I argue this in assumption #2. Once the bullet has say, pierced the brain stem, there is no greedy choice from there that will save you. Perfect QI likely won't maim you as that would limit your survival possibilities. It's the global optimum.

There is still a problem with this though. What if there is more than one timeline where you always live? How is one chosen? My guess would be either it's randomly chosen, or there is only one timeline. Let me elaborate on the latter with a mathematical analogy.

You have an infinite list of real numbers. These numbers represent different timelines, the value being how long you survive. If you order them, you can always find a larger finite number looking at the next one, but none of them are infinite in value. Since QI assumes immortality not longevity we will assume the limit of this ordered list is infinity and not a finite number. Thus there is one reality in which you live infinitely, and that's the limit of this ordered set. The only chance for approaching this limit is through a mechanism like perfect QI.

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

#62
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Branching of multiverse on every measurement event is an approximation. The branches aren't fully isolated. I suspect that extremely low amplitude branches undergo merger events, which makes it impossible to have coherent timeline in them. But I'm completely out of my depth here.

I don't think that's an official part of the theory. It may be true, but I don't think anyone's proposed it. Defining "low amplitude" branch meaningfully would be a real challenge. As I like to say sometimes, the probability of anything happening is indistinguishable from zero. 15-16 billion years after the Big Bang, we've already got a pretty low amplitude, one that would require something like arrow notation (as I…

A world where each and every person still lives would be pretty bizarre. That's around 107 billion people.

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

#63
post #56
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, in the limit it's not observably different from death? Then it's death.

It's all the things. QI is basically just an consciousness-centric view of the already-understood truth that in the quantum multiverse, everything that can possibly happen does. It just means that there is some way in which you may actually experience some aspect of that, because your future conscious experience excludes all the universes in which you are not conscious. You can draw a subset of future universes in wh…

Great explanation. Thank you. And, I got to look up "arrow notation." I had never heard of it.

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

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If quantum immortality is true, and I, knowing that, step in front of a car, how is it going to prevent my bones from breaking? I remember a haunting fantasy short story about a boy in a small town who accidentally meets and becomes friends with the man who digs all of the graves. Eventually he notices that somehow, the gravedigger knows when a grave is needed before a person dies, but won't say how or who. Often it…

>If quantum immortality is true, and I, knowing that, step in front of a car, how is it going to prevent my bones from breaking? Your body quantum-tunnels [1]through the car and emerges un scathered on the other side. IANAP, but I believe it is technically possible although the probability is astronomically close to zero. Butif QI is true, you would experience it. It is an example of the apparently logical impossilit…

Yeah, but if consciousness is the invariant, then there are vastly more futures in which I don't tunnel through the car but just barely avoid brain-death.

And when I say vastly, I'm pretty sure the ratio is larger than the number of particles in the universe squared.

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

#65
post #52
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 coll…

"Do people really argue that conscience is so special that the universe refuses to end one?" QI doesn't protect consciousness. Its argument applies to any quantum state, described by any arbitrarily complicated acceptance function of that state. The QI argument implies that you can pick up a rock, and that there exists some set of universes in which that rock will survive indefinitely, exactly as it is now, to any de…

Why should it bring more comfort than knowing, e.g. that there are alternative universes where my deceased loved ones are alive?

There seems to be a belief that our consciousness will "jump" to an alive alternative. I think that's a strong misconception of what many-worlds interpretation says.

Talking about misconceptions, without having more than superficial background in QM, I doubt that being able to consider even very unlikely outcomes allows you to discard macroscopic causality altogether, which QI basically requires.

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

#66
post #65
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Do people really argue that conscience is so special that the universe refuses to end one?" QI doesn't protect consciousness. Its argument applies to any quantum state, described by any arbitrarily complicated acceptance function of that state. The QI argument implies that you can pick up a rock, and that there exists some set of universes in which that rock will survive indefinitely, exactly as it is now, to any de…

Why should it bring more comfort than knowing, e.g. that there are alternative universes where my deceased loved ones are alive? There seems to be a belief that our consciousness will "jump" to an alive alternative. I think that's a strong misconception of what many-worlds interpretation says. Talking about misconceptions, without having more than superficial background in QM, I doubt that being able to consider even…

"Why should it bring more comfort than knowing, e.g. that there are alternative universes where my deceased loved ones are alive?"

I'm not sure you're reading my posts for what they say, rather than what you expect them to say. I think QI is horrible, as in, more suited to horror stories, than something that offers comfort. Nor do I discuss any sort of "jumping".

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

#67
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's an official part of the theory. It may be true, but I don't think anyone's proposed it. Defining "low amplitude" branch meaningfully would be a real challenge. As I like to say sometimes, the probability of anything happening is indistinguishable from zero. 15-16 billion years after the Big Bang, we've already got a pretty low amplitude, one that would require something like arrow notation (as I…

A world where each and every person still lives would be pretty bizarre. That's around 107 billion people.

Such a world is utterly dominated by the worlds in which you are kept conscious, but nobody else is. If QI keeps you conscious for a billion years, you'll be alone.

(I keep typing "you are kept alive", but that's not the promise. Only conscious. Being "alive" will be extraneous to that.)

Post reply on HN