4 ms·

To some extent it reminds me a story "All paths to happiness" https://physicsnapkins.wordpress.com/2013/05/20/all-paths-to-happiness/ https://physicsnapkins.wor

by stared 11y ago

To some extent it reminds me a story "All paths to happiness" https://physicsnapkins.wordpress.com/2013/05/20/all-paths-to-happiness/ https://physicsnapkins.wordpress.com/2013/05/20/all-paths-to... - without spoiling it too much, also about trying all combinatorial possibilities. For quantum suicide (as in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortalit...) - it still makes me think. Maybe it makes sense to gamble with others (using photons in superposition), putting my life at stake. And e.g. in the only 1/1024 universes I live I have x1024 money (and other universes do not matter to me).

msellout 11y ago
That makes for an interesting interpretation of all those action movies where the protagonist seems to risk his life so frequently. We're only watching the most interesting one.
- stared 11y ago
  But then it's not quantum mechanics, but statistical mechanics. Also known as survival bias. For the reasons it seems that it is good to be brave in danger - for all brave succeed. Except for ones that did not and won't tell their stories.
  - taneq 11y ago
    Or for a more commonplace example, old successful people telling young people to "take risks" and "follow your dreams". Of course they think it works in general because it worked for them.
TelmoMenezes 11y ago
Notice that for this to work reliably (assuming the Many World Interpretation is correct), you need a suicide method with a failure rate orders of magnitude below the probability of winning the bet. Otherwise you may end up in a universe where the suicide method failed instead of one where you win the bet. Failures that cause you a severe disability instead of killing you are particularly worrying. The lower the probability of winning a bet (and so, the higher the potential gain), the more reliable you need your suicide system to be. For relevant gains, this becomes a non-trivial engineering problem. (e.g. suppose you need a gun that only jams for one in every billion shots, or a computer that can run for billions of seconds without crashing or malfunctioning).
- stared 11y ago
  This reliability is not that hard: take a photon and split it though a beamsplitter. One path leads to a detector with "you won" and the other - a detector igniting an explosive. So why there may be problems (like: photon was not detected due to finite sensitivity) in this setting the wounded-but-not-dead outcome is negligible. In general, it is easy to amplify quantum effect with such avalanche reactions. When it comes to MWI - it is the hard part. I am not sure if I believe it; or what is it's interpretations (maybe it's still unethical to having mourning families and friends in 1-\epsilon worlds). Also: even if I gamble many times, and I find myself alive - does it mean is it correct? And even if - there is no way of announcing it. And also, on a funnier note - Everettian dating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBkBS4O3yvY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBkBS4O3yvY
  - Chris2048 11y ago
    malfunctioning detector?
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    I don't understand your design. How does the fact as to whether you won cause the photon to activate the explosive?
    - stared 11y ago
      There are two different detectors and a single photon. It can be detected only in one place at a time.
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        The usual design of quantum suicide involves the following: 1. Something in the world depends on a choice you make. If you choose correctly, you win. Ideally, there are a large number of choices, e.g. lottery, stock, bitcoin private keys, whatever. 2. You use quantum randomness to make the choice 3. The machine you constructed checks whether you won 4. If you did not win, it kills you So you need to have a machine that reliably checks for a win, and kills you if it doesn't find one. How does having two detectors for the proton help?

by stared 11y ago

msellout 11y ago

That makes for an interesting interpretation of all those action movies where the protagonist seems to risk his life so frequently. We're only watching the most interesting one.

stared 11y ago
But then it's not quantum mechanics, but statistical mechanics. Also known as survival bias. For the reasons it seems that it is good to be brave in danger - for all brave succeed. Except for ones that did not and won't tell their stories.
- taneq 11y ago
  Or for a more commonplace example, old successful people telling young people to "take risks" and "follow your dreams". Of course they think it works in general because it worked for them.

TelmoMenezes 11y ago

Notice that for this to work reliably (assuming the Many World Interpretation is correct), you need a suicide method with a failure rate orders of magnitude below the probability of winning the bet. Otherwise you may end up in a universe where the suicide method failed instead of one where you win the bet. Failures that cause you a severe disability instead of killing you are particularly worrying. The lower the probability of winning a bet (and so, the higher the potential gain), the more reliable you need your suicide system to be. For relevant gains, this becomes a non-trivial engineering problem. (e.g. suppose you need a gun that only jams for one in every billion shots, or a computer that can run for billions of seconds without crashing or malfunctioning).

stared 11y ago
This reliability is not that hard: take a photon and split it though a beamsplitter. One path leads to a detector with "you won" and the other - a detector igniting an explosive. So why there may be problems (like: photon was not detected due to finite sensitivity) in this setting the wounded-but-not-dead outcome is negligible. In general, it is easy to amplify quantum effect with such avalanche reactions. When it comes to MWI - it is the hard part. I am not sure if I believe it; or what is it's interpretations (maybe it's still unethical to having mourning families and friends in 1-\epsilon worlds). Also: even if I gamble many times, and I find myself alive - does it mean is it correct? And even if - there is no way of announcing it. And also, on a funnier note - Everettian dating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBkBS4O3yvY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBkBS4O3yvY
- Chris2048 11y ago
  malfunctioning detector?
- ikeboy 11y ago
  I don't understand your design. How does the fact as to whether you won cause the photon to activate the explosive?
  - stared 11y ago
    There are two different detectors and a single photon. It can be detected only in one place at a time.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      The usual design of quantum suicide involves the following: 1. Something in the world depends on a choice you make. If you choose correctly, you win. Ideally, there are a large number of choices, e.g. lottery, stock, bitcoin private keys, whatever. 2. You use quantum randomness to make the choice 3. The machine you constructed checks whether you won 4. If you did not win, it kills you So you need to have a machine that reliably checks for a win, and kills you if it doesn't find one. How does having two detectors for the proton help?