User talk:Hosadus

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

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.

Hosadus (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't told me which of the claims made in the quoted text are not accepted by QSers -- I assume therefore that you accept the claims as factually correct in that they represent the views of QSers, contrary to your edit comment summary, as well as being factually correct in actuality (as we both agree). As for misleading, the quoted is trying to correct the misleading statements in the preceding text, which imply that MWIers/ QSers don't accept those statements, which is false.


 * BTW Mallah's argument amounts to claiming that the Born probability measure is the only relevant factor in determining the subjective experience of a quantum suicider. However he hasn't demonstrated that, just assumed it. This is the asumption that QSers reject --Michael C. Price talk 00:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I accept the quoted text as a statement of what QSers believe. It is factually incorrect in reality that the experimenter's subjective experience is unaffected by QS, which is what QSers believe.

You admit that QSers reject the measure argument. Your previous statement that QSers accept those statements contradicts your own statement and is false.

BTW we are talking about QSers, not MWIers like Mallah. Don't conflate the two issues.

I suggest you re-read the reference, it is not just based on assumptions. The argument about typical observers and evolution, and the general argument against immortality, provide empirical proof that QI is wrong. Hosadus (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You admit that QSers reject the measure argument.
 * Admit? Of course QSers don't accept the measure argument.  It sounds as if you fail to understand the QSers POV.
 * Your previous statement that QSers accept those statements contradicts your own statement and is false.
 * Eh? You're not making any sense. Take it to the QI talk page and resolve your issues there before making any further changes which degrade the article. --Michael C. Price talk 18:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

PS, your statement ''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.'' is odd. Measure is externally measurable, and hence is relevant to external agents. If it wasn't then Mallah's argument would not be scientific.--Michael C. Price talk 19:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

MC Price: The text you keep re-inserting is misleading and gives the impression that QSers accept the measure argument but don't think it falsifies QS.

Measure is not externally measureable. As an extreme example: If it were, then solipsism would not be internally consistent. Mallah explains how he uses measure in his arguments and each observer must base his guess of what the measure distribution is on his own observations, e.g. his age in the argument vs. immortality. Hosadus (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)