Hope And Qm

[petrushkagoogol]

Is hope the potential best event chain as perceived using the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics ? (Hope is quantifiable).  

[exchemist]

Is hope the potential best event chain as perceived using the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics ? (Hope is quantifiable).  

My hovercraft is full of eels.

[DrKrettin]

Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.

[OceanBreeze]

Hovercraft have no keels

[exchemist]

Hovercraft have no keels

Suppose I could indignantly report you for going off-topic! 

[DrKrettin]

Suppose I could indignantly report you for going off-topic! 

 

In order to do that, you must know what the topic is.

[exchemist]

In order to do that, you must know what the topic is.

 

Dat de point, bruv. 

[DrKrettin]

Dat de point, bruv. 

 

Well, for starters, is hope quantifiable? I do hope so. 

[OceanBreeze]

Well, for starters, is hope quantifiable? I do hope so. 

 

I counted two.

[OceanBreeze]

Suppose I could indignantly report you for going off-topic! 

 

That is not the potential best event chain I was hoping for.

[CraigD]

For all his Chomsky-esque diction and grammar, I think pgoogol may be think of a well known old (30 year or so) thought experiment, quantum immortality.

 

Like most quantum physics thought experiments, it’s weird, and thought-provoking.

 

A naïve interpretation of it can be hopeful as one can get, as it suggests that none of us will ever experience death, or terribly pessimistic, as the same interpretation suggests that we will all wind up in an sort of never-ending, increasingly weird, horrific hell.

[petrushkagoogol]

For all his Chomsky-esque diction and grammar, I think pgoogol may be think of a well known old (30 year or so) thought experiment, quantum immortality.

 

Like most quantum physics thought experiments, it’s weird, and thought-provoking.

 

A naïve interpretation of it can be hopeful as one can get, as it suggests that none of us will ever experience death, or terribly pessimistic, as the same interpretation suggests that we will all wind up in an sort of never-ending, increasingly weird, horrific hell.

 

In this age of right-wing politics, allying oneself with an octogenarian peacenik socialist cannot be politically astute....

But then that is the topic for another forum :-)

[DrKrettin]

In this age of right-wing politics, allying oneself with an octogenarian peacenik socialist cannot be politically astute....

 

 

Since when is jumping on the moronocracy bandwagon being politically astute? 

[CraigD]

For all his Chomsky-esque diction and grammar, I think pgoogol may be think of a well known old (30 year or so) thought experiment, quantum immortality.

 

Like most quantum physics thought experiments, it’s weird, and thought-provoking.

 

A naïve interpretation of it can be hopeful as one can get, as it suggests that none of us will ever experience death, or terribly pessimistic, as the same interpretation suggests that we will all wind up in an sort of never-ending, increasingly weird, horrific hell.

In this age of right-wing politics, allying oneself with an octogenarian peacenik socialist cannot be politically astute....

But then that is the topic for another forum :-)

It is indeed a topic for the pollical science forum, not this one (though, looking now, I think that since the original post doesn’t present to reference an alternative physics theory, it isn’t a topic for the Alternative Theories forum, so have moved it to the Philosopher’s Weightroom).

 

By linking my use of “Chomsky-esque” to the Wikipedia page colorless green ideas sleep furiously, I didn’t intend to suggest that you, pgoogol, I, or anyone in this thread share or do not share any of the political views of Noam Chomsky. I’m worried that you’re not understanding people’s commenting on your post with references to this phrase, which was one Chomsky wrote in 1955 as an example of an English language sentence that is grammatical but nonsensical.

 

I don’t think your post actually is nonsensical in the same sense as Chomsky’s, but like many of your posts, I find it very hard to make sense of.

 

Are you, as I guessed, trying to start a discussion of the quantum immortality thought experiment :QuestionM

[petrushkagoogol]

It is indeed a topic for the pollical science forum, not this one (though, looking now, I think that since the original post doesn’t present to reference an alternative physics theory, it isn’t a topic for the Alternative Theories forum, so have moved it to the Philosopher’s Weightroom).

 

By linking my use of “Chomsky-esque” to the Wikipedia page colorless green ideas sleep furiously, I didn’t intend to suggest that you, pgoogol, I, or anyone in this thread share or do not share any of the political views of Noam Chomsky. I’m worried that you’re not understanding people’s commenting on your post with references to this phrase, which was one Chomsky wrote in 1955 as an example of an English language sentence that is grammatical but nonsensical.

 

I don’t think your post actually is nonsensical in the same sense as Chomsky’s, but like many of your posts, I find it very hard to make sense of.

 

Are you, as I guessed, trying to start a discussion of the quantum immortality thought experiment :QuestionM

 

As a matter of fact, Yes......

[fahrquad]

The concept of Immortality is entirely within the scope of sentient life.  Whether that sentient life is intelligent remains to be seen.  Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so it is inherently immortal by definition, although time means nothing when it comes to energy.  Animal life has some degree of intelligence, although I doubt any animals are thinking of the meaning of life beyond the one they are living.  I personally think that trees have some sort of rudimentary communication with other surrounding trees by means of chemical signatures emitted and received (pheromones?).  How else do they uniformly form a forest?

[HydrogenBond]

If you look at a quantum universe and compare this to a universe defined by continuous functions; 19th century, since a quantum universe only has limited states, a quantum universe is more deterministic, than a continuous function universe. For example, there are five electron energy levels for the hydrogen atom. If we lived in a continuous function universe, there would be an infinite number of energy levels for hydrogen. Quantum narrows the possibilities; loads the dice. 

 

The irony is when physics discovered our quantum universe, they also decided to use a random model of the universe. Whereas the old continuous models assume determinism based logic and data. Both have it backwards. A quantum universe loads the dice and made the universe less random, not more random. 

 

Hope and faith are interesting, relative to a quantum universe. If you hoped for hydrogen to give off energy, based on any of its five energy levels, your hope has excellent odds, since the dice are loaded to these options. But if you hope for a photon between  any of these states, it is hopeless. This is why we have reason and common sense. Not all options that we may hope for will appear, when you have loaded dice. But if you know how the dice are loaded, through reason and observation, dreams do come true. 

 

Merry Christmas.