MinibearRex comments on Rationality Quotes March 2012 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: Thomas 03 March 2012 08:04AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (525)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: MinibearRex 07 March 2012 10:07:38PM -1 points [-]

There’s no such thing as the unknown– only things temporarily hidden, temporarily not understood.

-Captain Kirk

Comment author: wedrifid 09 March 2012 06:48:18AM 4 points [-]

There’s no such thing as the unknown– only things temporarily hidden, temporarily not understood.

Nonsense. I just threw Schrodinger's cat outside the future light cone. In your Everett branch is the cat alive or dead?

-Captain Kirk

Ok, sure, having a physics where faster than light and even (direct) time travel are possible makes things easier.

Comment author: MinibearRex comment score below threshold [+] (5 children)

Comment author: wedrifid 10 March 2012 09:41:41AM 2 points [-]

The question doesn't really make sense. Someone with a detailed knowledge of physics in this situation can predict what an observer anywhere will observe.

No they can't. They most certainly can't predict what the observer that is right next to the damn box with the cat in it will observe when it opens the box. In fact, they can't even predict what all observers anywhere in my future light cone will observe (just those observations that could ever be sent back to me).

Comment author: Incorrect 10 March 2012 06:35:28AM 2 points [-]

It seems to me that asking about the state of something in "your" Everett branch while it's outside your light cone is rather meaningless. The question doesn't really make sense. Someone with a detailed knowledge of physics in this situation can predict what an observer anywhere will observe.

So, if it was someone you care about instead of a cat, would you prefer that this happened or that they disappeared entirely?

Comment author: [deleted] 10 March 2012 09:01:17AM -1 points [-]

It is still not meaningful from a physical standpoint. If you were to throw something I valued outside my future lightcone, then I would take the same as you destroying said thing.

And may I remind you that Schrödingers cat was proposed as a thought experimental counter argument to the copenhagen inteprentation, so asking if it is alive or dead before I have had particle interaction with it is equally meaningless, because it has yet to decohere.

Comment author: wedrifid 10 March 2012 09:48:05AM 5 points [-]

It is still not meaningful from a physical standpoint.

Yes it is. Physics doesn't revolve around you. The fact that you can't influence or observe something is a limitation in you, not in physics. Stuff keeps existing when you can't see it.

If you were to throw something I valued outside my future lightcone, then I would take the same as you destroying said thing.

I don't believe you. I would bet that if actually given the choice between someone you loved being sent outside your future lightcone then destroyed or just sent outside the future lightcone and given delicious cookies then you would prefer them to be given the far-away cookies than the far away destruction.

Comment author: [deleted] comment score below threshold [+] (0 children)

Comment author: nshepperd 10 March 2012 07:42:25AM -1 points [-]

I just threw Schrodinger's cat outside the future light cone. In your Everett branch is the cat alive or dead?

Both?

Comment author: wedrifid 10 March 2012 09:32:33AM 1 point [-]

Both?

No.

Comment author: nshepperd 11 March 2012 03:18:55AM * 0 points [-]

Well, in this case the universal wavefunction does factorise into a product of two functions 𝛙(light cone)𝛙(cat), where 𝛙(cat) has an "alive" branch and "dead" branch, but 𝛙(light cone) does not. I'd rather identify with 𝛙(light cone) than 𝛙(light cone × cat) [i.e. 𝛙(universe)], but whatever.

The point you were trying to make is correct anyway, either way.

Comment author: soreff 07 March 2012 11:54:29PM 2 points [-]

"Temporarily" can be quite a long time... So when can we expect to probe plank-energy physics solidly enough to really test how quantum gravity works? :)

MinibearRex comments on Rationality Quotes March 2012 - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (525)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (525)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login