User talk:Hosadus: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Please tell which of those conclusions are not accepted by QSers. |
Please tell which of those conclusions are not accepted by QSers. |
||
--[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]] <sup>[[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]]</sup> 19:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC) |
--[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]] <sup>[[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]]</sup> 19:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
It has been argued by Mallah that |
|||
1) Quantum suicide can not give a recipe for "entering into" rare or "low measure" observer moments, |
|||
because the amount of consciousness or "measure" of these rare observer moments is exactly as much as it would have been without the quantum suicide; in that case quantum suicide merely removes the other observer-moments. This is equivalent to a single-world situation in which one starts off with many copies of the experimenter, and the number of surviving copies is decreased by 50% with each run. |
|||
Therefore, according to this argument, |
|||
2) the _quantum nature_ of the experiment provides _no benefit_ to the experimenter; [Note: as compared to trying classical Russian roulette] |
|||
3) in terms of his subjective [Note subjective] life expectancy or |
|||
4) (his) rational decision making [eg whether to try the experiment], or even in terms of |
|||
5) his [Note his] trying to decide whether the many-worlds interpretation is correct |
|||
the many-worlds interpretation gives results that are the same as that of a single-world interpretation.[3] |
|||
Note: Conclusions 1-5 are not accepted by QSers. |
|||
"they never claimed that quantum suicide gives verifiable results accessible to the scientific community or any external agent, nor that the suicidal experimenter's life expectancy (as measured by an external agent) would be extended (in fact it is shortened); they only claim that experimenter's subjective experience is altered" |
|||
The quoted text above is true but has nothing to do with the measure argument, which does _not_ involve external agents. Adding it to the paragraph is misleading as that would seems to falsely suggest that this _does_ have something to do with the measure argument and somehow weakens it. |
|||
[[User:Hosadus|Hosadus]] ([[User talk:Hosadus#top|talk]]) 19:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:51, 12 February 2009
Quantum suicide
Please tell which of those conclusions are not accepted by QSers. --Michael C. Price talk 19:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
It has been argued by Mallah that
1) Quantum suicide can not give a recipe for "entering into" rare or "low measure" observer moments,
because the amount of consciousness or "measure" of these rare observer moments is exactly as much as it would have been without the quantum suicide; in that case quantum suicide merely removes the other observer-moments. This is equivalent to a single-world situation in which one starts off with many copies of the experimenter, and the number of surviving copies is decreased by 50% with each run.
Therefore, according to this argument,
2) the _quantum nature_ of the experiment provides _no benefit_ to the experimenter; [Note: as compared to trying classical Russian roulette]
3) in terms of his subjective [Note subjective] life expectancy or
4) (his) rational decision making [eg whether to try the experiment], or even in terms of
5) his [Note his] trying to decide whether the many-worlds interpretation is correct
the many-worlds interpretation gives results that are the same as that of a single-world interpretation.[3]
Note: Conclusions 1-5 are not accepted by QSers.
"they never claimed that quantum suicide gives verifiable results accessible to the scientific community or any external agent, nor that the suicidal experimenter's life expectancy (as measured by an external agent) would be extended (in fact it is shortened); they only claim that experimenter's subjective experience is altered"
The quoted text above is true but has nothing to do with the measure argument, which does _not_ involve external agents. Adding it to the paragraph is misleading as that would seems to falsely suggest that this _does_ have something to do with the measure argument and somehow weakens it.