4 ms·

For the benefit of anyone completely confused by this, it's in reference to the concept of "quantum suicide", associated with the many-worlds interpretation of

For the benefit of anyone completely confused by this, it's in reference to the concept of "quantum suicide", associated with the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. The Wikipedia article explains the basic idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality In this case, the implication is two-fold: that many-worlds is the correct interpretation, and that the alarmists worried that the LHC will destroy the world are (and were) correct. From that perspective, powering up the LHC can be viewed as a worldwide quantum mass suicide experiment. From a scientific standpoint, this theory would predict that because (by assumption) nobody will be around to observe any world with an operational LHC, we will observe it failing every time, and the more careful we are to prevent possible failures the more implausible the failures that occur will become. As silly as this sounds, you have to admit it makes a certain amount of sense. I mean, really, a piece of bread? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/05/lhc_bread_bomb_dump_incident/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/05/lhc_bread_bomb_dump_...

chrischen 17y ago
Wait, does this mean I cannot die because if I die, I will not be conscious to realize it? Sweet, but what if all possible realities are of me dying?
- jeromec 17y ago
  As long as anyone else can observe you dead, you will be dead.
  - rw 17y ago
    Hermit life-insurance policy.
  - chrischen 17y ago
    Yes but if I'm not dead in another reality, then I'm only conscious there. And since supposedly the LHC would kill everyone, that's why no one will see it work right?
    - jeromec 17y ago
      This only means the LHC can't kill you; it doesn't make you immortal. The LHC will continue to fail, but you're free to leap from the Empire State Building and have several people observe you die in that particular reality.
      - chrischen 17y ago
        But the LHC can't kill you is because if it does, it would be unimportant since I wouldn't be around to observe such a reality right? So all realities I observe are those which I am conscious in right? So if I jump of the Empire State Building, I die. However that reality no longer matters because my consciousness no longer exists in it. But another reality where I didn't jump off, I'm still conscious, therefore it's all I remember. Am I getting this right guys?
        jeromec 17y ago
        It depends. The problem with the many worlds theory (which I don't subscribe to) is there are many variations. One would be that there are variations of reality only specific to you. Another is that variations of reality exist but continue their course regardless of your interaction with them. The article is funny because it mixes a silly concept with a proven one, that of observation having a bearing on reality.
        chrischen 17y ago
        What do you mean by variations of reality only specific to you? This is from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation There is a rather more dramatic test than the one outlined above for people prepared to put their lives on the line: use a machine which kills them if a random quantum decay happens. If MWI is true, they will still be alive in the world where the decay didn't happen and would feel no interruption in their stream of consciousness. By repeating this process a number of times, their continued consciousness would be arbitrarily unlikely unless MWI was true, when they would be alive in all the worlds where the random decay was on their side. From their viewpoint they would be immune to this death process. Clearly, if MWI does not hold, they would be dead in the one world. Other people would generally just see them die and would not be able to benefit from the result of this experiment. So it seems that the MWI assumes that all possible realities exist simultaneously? If this is true, then trying to commit suicide would make logical sense. You can do crazy stunts and not die, and if you don't die, you'd become famous.
- jerf 17y ago
  The set of things out on the fringe of quantum possibilities (1 out of 10^100^100, for example, and beyond) is quite odd. The probability of your body spontaneously rearranging itself to be much younger is minuscule (to a degree of "minuscule" you've never thought about before) but non-zero, for instance. However, it has been pointed out that if this is true, it is actually quite horrible. Reality may not permit you to fully die, but only a vanishing fraction of the vanishing fraction of realities involves you being anything like healthy; the maximal probability outcome by a long shot is you simple hanging on to a minimal life through a series of increasingly unlikely quantum events but never returning to anything like health. Quantum-multiple-world believers better damn well hope it's not actually true. Actually, we all better damn well hope it's not true. On a similar note, while it is funny to talk about how unlikely these events are, it seems to me that if the Higgs is offended about being observed and quantum-destroys the universes it is produced in, the way it would actually manifest is that it would seem that just as a particular particle collision is about to occur that would produce the Higgs, the resulting collision would simply conform to the probability distribution of the Higgs production, along with all the other possible outcomes, minus the Higgs production possibility. (That is, if it's 20% Higgs, 40% something with an anti-proton, 40% something with a proton, it'll manifest as an anomalous observation of 50% proton, 50% anti-proton.) The universe is not going to reach out across 10^52-ish planck instants to do something like drop bread on a machine weeks before it would be brought up; by far the maximum probability is that it would happen in the last few Planck instants, for each potential Higgs production. So, it's a fun story, but I don't see the probabilities adding up for it to be "true". Incidentally, if true, this may be able to be experimentally observed, in that we would be able to see the distorted outcome probabilities.
  - jeremyawon 17y ago
    i'm trying to follow your last paragraph. "while it is funny to talk about how unlikely these events are ..." individually the scenarios may be highly improbable - but as a category, aren't there more ways a mechanical failure point could play out at the macroscopic level, than ways the particle collision event could spontaneously "mis-manifest"? "The universe is not going to reach out across 10^52-ish planck instants to do something like drop bread on a machine weeks before it would be brought up" a universe could reach out two weeks before, or a week plus 1 femto second, or it may drop cheese instead of bread, etc. - aren't there more histories like this across all the many-worlds, than ones involving last-moment quantum weirdness?
- jeremyawon 17y ago
  it isn't sweet, since there are likely more unpleasant than pleasant ways of remaining conscious. "The Sibyl of Cumae, who led Aeneas on his journey to the underworld, for which he collected the Golden Bough, was the most famous prophetess of the ancient world. Beloved of Apollo, she was given anything she might desire. She asked for eternal life. Sadly, Apollo granted her wish, for she had forgotten to ask for eternal youth. Now dried, dessicated, and shrunken, she is carried in a cricket cage, and when the boys ask her what she desires, she says: 'I want to die.'" http://www.history-of-culture.org/Lectures/Part_2/22302.htm http://www.history-of-culture.org/Lectures/Part_2/22302.htm

chrischen 17y ago

Wait, does this mean I cannot die because if I die, I will not be conscious to realize it? Sweet, but what if all possible realities are of me dying?

jeromec 17y ago
As long as anyone else can observe you dead, you will be dead.
- rw 17y ago
  Hermit life-insurance policy.
- chrischen 17y ago
  Yes but if I'm not dead in another reality, then I'm only conscious there. And since supposedly the LHC would kill everyone, that's why no one will see it work right?
  - jeromec 17y ago
    This only means the LHC can't kill you; it doesn't make you immortal. The LHC will continue to fail, but you're free to leap from the Empire State Building and have several people observe you die in that particular reality.
    - chrischen 17y ago
      But the LHC can't kill you is because if it does, it would be unimportant since I wouldn't be around to observe such a reality right? So all realities I observe are those which I am conscious in right? So if I jump of the Empire State Building, I die. However that reality no longer matters because my consciousness no longer exists in it. But another reality where I didn't jump off, I'm still conscious, therefore it's all I remember. Am I getting this right guys?
      - jeromec 17y ago
        It depends. The problem with the many worlds theory (which I don't subscribe to) is there are many variations. One would be that there are variations of reality only specific to you. Another is that variations of reality exist but continue their course regardless of your interaction with them. The article is funny because it mixes a silly concept with a proven one, that of observation having a bearing on reality.
        chrischen 17y ago
        What do you mean by variations of reality only specific to you? This is from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation There is a rather more dramatic test than the one outlined above for people prepared to put their lives on the line: use a machine which kills them if a random quantum decay happens. If MWI is true, they will still be alive in the world where the decay didn't happen and would feel no interruption in their stream of consciousness. By repeating this process a number of times, their continued consciousness would be arbitrarily unlikely unless MWI was true, when they would be alive in all the worlds where the random decay was on their side. From their viewpoint they would be immune to this death process. Clearly, if MWI does not hold, they would be dead in the one world. Other people would generally just see them die and would not be able to benefit from the result of this experiment. So it seems that the MWI assumes that all possible realities exist simultaneously? If this is true, then trying to commit suicide would make logical sense. You can do crazy stunts and not die, and if you don't die, you'd become famous.
jerf 17y ago
The set of things out on the fringe of quantum possibilities (1 out of 10^100^100, for example, and beyond) is quite odd. The probability of your body spontaneously rearranging itself to be much younger is minuscule (to a degree of "minuscule" you've never thought about before) but non-zero, for instance. However, it has been pointed out that if this is true, it is actually quite horrible. Reality may not permit you to fully die, but only a vanishing fraction of the vanishing fraction of realities involves you being anything like healthy; the maximal probability outcome by a long shot is you simple hanging on to a minimal life through a series of increasingly unlikely quantum events but never returning to anything like health. Quantum-multiple-world believers better damn well hope it's not actually true. Actually, we all better damn well hope it's not true. On a similar note, while it is funny to talk about how unlikely these events are, it seems to me that if the Higgs is offended about being observed and quantum-destroys the universes it is produced in, the way it would actually manifest is that it would seem that just as a particular particle collision is about to occur that would produce the Higgs, the resulting collision would simply conform to the probability distribution of the Higgs production, along with all the other possible outcomes, minus the Higgs production possibility. (That is, if it's 20% Higgs, 40% something with an anti-proton, 40% something with a proton, it'll manifest as an anomalous observation of 50% proton, 50% anti-proton.) The universe is not going to reach out across 10^52-ish planck instants to do something like drop bread on a machine weeks before it would be brought up; by far the maximum probability is that it would happen in the last few Planck instants, for each potential Higgs production. So, it's a fun story, but I don't see the probabilities adding up for it to be "true". Incidentally, if true, this may be able to be experimentally observed, in that we would be able to see the distorted outcome probabilities.
- jeremyawon 17y ago
  i'm trying to follow your last paragraph. "while it is funny to talk about how unlikely these events are ..." individually the scenarios may be highly improbable - but as a category, aren't there more ways a mechanical failure point could play out at the macroscopic level, than ways the particle collision event could spontaneously "mis-manifest"? "The universe is not going to reach out across 10^52-ish planck instants to do something like drop bread on a machine weeks before it would be brought up" a universe could reach out two weeks before, or a week plus 1 femto second, or it may drop cheese instead of bread, etc. - aren't there more histories like this across all the many-worlds, than ones involving last-moment quantum weirdness?
jeremyawon 17y ago
it isn't sweet, since there are likely more unpleasant than pleasant ways of remaining conscious. "The Sibyl of Cumae, who led Aeneas on his journey to the underworld, for which he collected the Golden Bough, was the most famous prophetess of the ancient world. Beloved of Apollo, she was given anything she might desire. She asked for eternal life. Sadly, Apollo granted her wish, for she had forgotten to ask for eternal youth. Now dried, dessicated, and shrunken, she is carried in a cricket cage, and when the boys ask her what she desires, she says: 'I want to die.'" http://www.history-of-culture.org/Lectures/Part_2/22302.htm http://www.history-of-culture.org/Lectures/Part_2/22302.htm