| Hua's profileSphere of ReasonPhotosBlogLists |  Tools  Help |
|
|
March 23 Quantum immortalityWARNING: if you have innocent mind on the sensitive issues (religious, life/death, Quantum Mechanics, gambling) included in this entry, or if you are under 18, please stop here, do NOT read on!
Death is the price of living, so live as happily as you can, cause when you check out, the price is huge and you wonot have a second chance to check-in again.
– random thought that I had this morning.
It’s such an intriguing and complex topic that the more I am thinking into it, the more freaky ideas were coming to me quickly, to a point that I am overwhelmed by my own thoughts. Just to sum up (I learnt recently a very sophisticated way to make a effective presentation: put the conclusions ahead, make your points clear, before you deverge yourself to a point that it’s no longer convergeable.):
in this article, there will be a lot of abstract talks and thinking process, concerning gambling, philosophy, religion, life/death, physics, history, and more. So if you are not in your peak mental status, better to avoid this and stop reading on.
The gourou of Poker world (actually, a true genius and expert in gambling world), David Sklansky, a reasonable (in the sense that he can be reasoned, and loves to reason things instead of taking them for granted) theist, recently started a heat topic in the Science, Math, Philosopy sub-forum of his 2+2 forums, pointing out that just because there is a non- God explanation for something doesn't mean that God didn't do it. Conversely just because we don't have a non God explanation for something doesn't mean there isn't one.
Every time (and I love to do so) I am involved in reading/thinking/debating topics related to philosophy, I got excited and I found I always improved my understanding (tho really trival compared to the whole complexity of the truth, which might simply be unknowable) after each thinking/debating. David made four fundamental points in his essay, to support the idea of God‘s existence:
1. There is something rather than nothing.
2. The universe and especially this planet, contain an amazing array of incredibly complicated living and non living things.
3. There is a "you" that knows it is alive in ways that animals or computers don't.
4. The spookiness of some aspects of relativaty and even more so, quantum theory.
The first and second point, IMHO, are really the same thing and they are easy for me to defend from an atheist’s point of view: Something can't come from nothing? Sounds reasonable but how does the existence of god from nothing get explained?
I do agree on the point that anything beyond the point of big bang (if there was one) or anything outside of the time/space range (beyond the concept of time, to be specific) is not a question of science, and can never be answered by science. It’s METAphysics, or beyond physics, literally.
The third point, the self-awareness or self-consciousness, will be my main topic today, conbined with the mysterious 4th point, on the QM. Just to make my point clear, about ten years ago I attempt to study both relativity and QM, to me, relativity is not spooky at all. As to QM, I have found it sometime beyond science, and could touch the limit of philosophy. The following is why:
Quantum immortality. Let’s start with Quantum suicide experiment, a thought experiment which was independently proposed in 1987 by Hans Moravec and in 1988 by Bruno Marchal, and further developed by Max Tegmark in 1998, that attempts to distinguish between the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Everett many-worlds interpretation by means of a variation of the Schrödinger's cat experiment. The experiment essentially involves looking at the Schrödinger's cat experiment from the point of view of the cat.
In this experiment, a physicist sits in front of a gun which is triggered or not triggered depending on the decay of some radioactive atom. With each run of the experiment there is a 50-50 chance that the gun will be triggered and the physicist will die. If the Copenhagen interpretation is correct, then the gun will eventually be triggered and the physicist will die. If the many-worlds interpretation is correct then at each run of the experiment the physicist will be split into one world in which he lives and another world in which he dies. After many runs of the experiment, there will be many worlds. In the worlds where the physicist dies, he will cease to exist. However, from the point of view of the non-dead physicist, the experiment will continue running without his ceasing to exist, because at each branch, he will only be able to observe the result in the world in which he survives, and if many-worlds is correct, the physicist will notice that he never seems to die. Unfortunately, the physicist will be unable to report the results because, from the viewpoint of an outside observer, the probabilities will be the same whether many worlds or Copenhagen is correct. A variation of this thought experiment suggests a controversial outcome known as quantum immortality, which is the argument that if the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct then a conscious observer can never cease to exist. I did have the same thought before, it had nothing to do with QM, it basically is based on Descartes’s Cogito, ergo sum, but my primary thought was, if I am facing an accident, and there is a chance that I will die (just as the gun experiment), how could I know if I did not survive? In case I did not, I would have died and not be able to “think”, thus, the fact that I could think (or have the concious) that I am still living sortof “forced” the result of accident (or experiment) to be in my favor, at least in “my” favor in the world I am still living. Basically my original idea doesnot differ too much from Max Tegmark’s thought experiment (and I did it much earlier than 1998 J), I did not know QM then (well, I have to confess that, I donot know it now neither), but I did emphesize on the concept of concious, which is the basic idea of quantum immortality.
I was playing poker online last evening. I made a silly decision not to stick with my pocket Aces on an extremely coordinated river (6 6 7 8 9) and was bluffed out. I played only small stake limit HE, so my loss due to my dicision was no more than a decent diner at Bernard's, or not even half of a bottle of 1er grand cru at la Tour d’Argent. But according to many-worlds interpretation (MWI), if I allow myself to push further, basically every (minor) accident will cause the world to spit into different parallel worlds in the next instant, (of course, according to theory, these world are independent in thesens that there wonot be any information trasfered between the parallel worlds). So if, say, in a parallel world, the online shuffler (or the random number generater, whatever) gave a different river card and I wasnot bluffed out of the pot and won it instead. Things are certainly different in that world. And things will be different in the worlds which split from that world later on (say, I will date a girl with that won money at Bernard's which fundamentally changes my life).
All these sound logical and clear till now (if you did follow me till here), until I ask the question: who am I? Since we are talking about conciousness, an important question is, whose conciousness is it, in every world? The obvious answer is I am who I am, the one who is thinking now in this current world. But think it a bit further, that might not be the true answer, I am the current-me now, because I am concious now, how about next instant? Do I have the right to choose which world to live on? NO. There will be several (or zillions of ) me living in different world in the next second, each one thinking differently, experiencing differently. Who am I? Some accident happens to me and now (then), I have to (out-of-controlly) be chosen to be the me who is not dead by the accident, the dead me cease to exist in the world where odd chose to determine so, my friends will be sad in that world, but that has nothing to do with the world where I survived, I will continue to live happily, with my friends?
That looks at the same time encouraging, and depressing. It’s encouraging because therefore you wonot die, any concious being wonot die. It’s depressing because, hey, my friends, my beloved one could not “live” with me in "my" world, cause I donot control, or have their concious, so they have to die one day in my world, again, determined by odd (if “I” am lucky, the current “i” will be distributed to a paralle world where my friends and relatives will live longer and happier there, if I am unlucky, I will be sent to a world where a lot of brutal and sad things happen to them). This brings the pb of not only the parallel world of my concious, but of the others, the (at least, if we donot count dauphins and monkeys on the earth, not to mention the ETs)) billions of concious beings’s parallel world.
Can I, choose to live in a world where my friends live forever as I do? The answer is appearently not. Could science advance in such a way that one day, we are able to choose which parallel world we want to live? Probably not (Seoul in 2009 and Vanilla sky are movies).
And is there an intellegent super power out there who is looking and laughing at what I am typing? Maybe.
P.S.
I got a flash this morning under shower on the Quantum immortality: Can you manage to suicide, being concious?
my answer to this is, to be able to creat a possible parallel world in which you could survive your suicide (jumping from the top of Eiffel Tower, e.g.), the universal law (or, any partial known physics law that is applicable) should not be violated. It might still be possible to "imagine" a senario where you wonot die after jumping from the top of Eiffel Tower, but. . . how about detonate an A-Bomb 1 meter next to you? No biological cell could survive a temperature of millions of degree. So any senario (or world) where you survive yourself after an A-bomb would violate the known physics and biological laws.
maybe another more concise answer which makes more sense is, most ppl lose their concious several milli-seconds, or several minutes, or several years before they die. So the most important condition of Quantum immortality, being concious, is no longer valid.
Oh no, I just theoretically killed a possibility to be immortal. Any mortal should not possess such power!
February 21 Undutiful son不孝有三, 无后为大.
Me and my compatriots are living in a heavy tradition/culture, which could easily turn into a heavy burden upon us. I have to confess, altho I always claimed that I had a traditional heart, I donot. I am only traditional from the "lite", or loafing side of the life.
I am an undutiful son. . .
Recently after a couple of chat with some close friends, I discovered one thing, a very common issue among my generation: we cann't be understood by our parents. That's a pretty straightforward statement, which is also sadly, very often true. As time goes by, we grew up, in happiness or in pains, we started to understand and appreciate our parents, we wanted and struggled to satisfy them. yet, strangely enough, they tend to become more and more selfish, they cannot see our feeling, they cannot read our heart, they are becoming old, and they just cannot keep up with us. They, e.g., in the name of love, could push us to blind dates, again and agian, they, in the name of love, could kill our love, without mercy. They are not complicate, they demand not for anything deluxe. yet, when you cannot satisfy them, they become merciless.
The power of tradition, i have to say.
Dear parents, can't you see that your dear daughter/son is suffering? can't you feel that her/his heart is bleeding? Stop apply that stupid pressure on us!
Stop! please. . .
It was well stated in Sex&City that the married ppl and the single ones are enemies. . . I want to add here, that the parents and their single kids are enemies, too. We donot mind fight our married friends, but, dear parents, we donot want to pick a fight on you, a fight that none of us will win. . .
If you donot understand us, please, please, please respect us, as we dutifully do to you. . .
February 17 Le Temps PerduA month, is like a year.
30 days, is the distance between us, a gap that we will never be able to come across, 'cause time is passing at the same speed, for both of us.
time is such a strange thing. I was reading A briefER Hstory of Time last week, and finally realized that according to the Theory of Relativity, time DOES actually pass slower when it's in a strong gravity.
I thought I would never be weak,
I thought I would never be serious,
I thought I would never cry again,
I thought . . .
until this morning, 30 days later, nothing more than a gathering party picture posted by an old classmate, I found it so unbearable, I found my nerves so fragile, I found time so slow, unbearably slow. . .
I counted and re-counted, it's only 30 days.
Zhanna once said, if only someone could give him a strike and when he waked up, it would be already 2 weeks later and the exams were all over. . . that was 10 years ago, could someone please bring me to ten years later? I would prefer looking for le temps perdu than being lost in it.
February 06 Born ENTj[Random Rant]
It takes you one year to understand the Shanghai dialect; 5 years, their temperament; 10 years, their lack of temperament; and Eternity, their wives. . . Being a Shanghaiee myself, I have to confess, I have never understood Shanghai girls, neither their temperament nor their lack of it.
[End Random Rant] A lot of friends asked for update of the Sphere, mainly ‘cause they could no longer bear the sadness of a sunny boy, I guess. . .
Je pense donc je suis.
Alors, recently I was spending a lot of time thinking over interpersonal relationships and how temperaments play an important role in-between. . . until last week Moira cast some lights on the very topic: the Jung Typology Test.
I have done several temperament/character tests before. Some of them interesting, most of them obvious/boring, and none of them scientific. This one is different, I guarantee you.
In theory, temperament does not change (unlike characters, which are basically the sum of your habits). Because you get different assessments at different times, indicates more about your character, than it does your temperament. We don't know how temperament is formed, but it appears very early in childhood. Also temperament is a pre-disposition towards a particular configuration of habits, not the habits themselves. From what I understood, I would put it this way: it’s difficult to change habits, sometime very difficult; whereas it is impossible to change temperament (本性难移). They are built-in, born with you, and defined as they are. Not like predicting future, the right way, I think, is to view temperament theory as a language to talk about commonalties and differences between people. People are different, fundamentally different, but at the same time, people are fundamentally similar also. The more you discuss these differences and commonalties, the more you will better understand the other person and yourself. Temperament descriptions are more of an outline of person, than a box. Besides temperament of the person, you have a person's character, his/her age, gender, culture background, his/her circumstance of life, (or even the astrology, the blood type if you believe in them at all.) etc.
Nevertheless, patterns of human behavior have been observed for thousand of years, Hippocrates, Plato, and Aristotle described "four kinds" of people: very close to descriptions of some modern day observers of human behavior. Also, as parents, people know that their kids can be different as night and day, and its nothing that they did. That's temperament. If you are old enough to go to a class reunion, you meet those people you knew in high school --- funny --- they haven't change. They act the same way as they did in high school, but maybe graying or spreading out. That's temperament.
How does it work? Well, you take the test, and will be classified by 4 letters (such as ENTJ) and a number associated to each letter, describing how strongly you distinguish yourself from one side to the other side of this aspect of temperament.
The first letter is either an E or an I, which stand for Extraverted and Introverted, respectively.
The second letter is either an N or an S, this might be the most important aspect of the four. N -- iNtuition: "Unconscious perceiving." Intuition involves the recognition of patterns, the perception of the abstract; it is a visionary sense. S -- Sensing: physiological perception; perceiving with the five natural senses. The third letter is either a T or an F,
T -- Thinking: Making decisions impersonally. F -- Feeling: Making decisions from a personal perspective. And the fourth letter is either a P or an J, P stands for Perceiving (or Probing), J for Judging (or Scheduling).
Some facts:
"Ns" What Jung called "iNtuitives". Keirsey liken them to "Martians." Abstract. Introspective. Those who look primarily through their own "minds eye."
They consists only less than 20% of the population. (read: they are not smarter, or superior, by any sense – there is no good or bad when talking about temperaments, just they are less born on the earth. :-) ) "Ss" What Jung calling the aspect "Sensing" Keirsey liken them to "Earthlings" Concrete. Observant. Those who look primarily at the world by their "percepts", using what's out there.
"NTs" Myers called them "iNtuitive Thinkers" Keirsey calls them "Rationals".
"NFs" Myers called them "iNtuitive Feeler" Keirsey calls them "Idealists". You will find more description of the 16 types once you finish the test and click on the links thereafter, or simply by googling them. Some personal understanding/observations:
- Although not dominantly, many my friends are Martians. . . well, Aliens make friends with Aliens, that makes sense, rite?
- Male friends (tough minded) tend to be more Rationals while female friends (tender minded) Idealists.
- most of my colleagues are Inventors (ENTP) or Engineers (INTP) (I seem to be saying obvious things, so I will just stop my silly observations, since I am neither feeling nor sensing) about myself:
time to reveal myself: Hua, You are:
· distinctively expressed extrovert · distinctively expressed intuitive personality · moderately expressed thinking personality · slightly expressed judging personality ENTJ, what they call.
The more refined versions of Rationals include Fieldmarshals and Inventors. Both correlate to the Myers "Extrovert" letter in that they have something in common regarding their expressiveness towards the outside world. I think I am just in the middle of the two, with slight if any preference on either judging or perceiving side. Although I am calssified as slightly expressed judging personality, personally I would see myself as a little bit more a “probing” guy than a “scheduling” guy. The Fieldmarshall is not "extroverted" very much, and the Inventor is even less. Sure, both the Fieldmarshal and the Inventor can be "gregarious" or "not shy", in fact they can be sometimes overbearing. They are usually pretty friendly at parties and open to people to some extent. Although they don't have to be. Moreover, if Fieldmarshal is finding a particular person "boring" (and that can be in a few seconds) he quickly will find any excuse to exit the scene very quickly or rake the person over the coals, so to make sure that person realizes he is not considered worthy. So the Fieldmarshal is an "extrovert" with a purpose (they are pragmatic -- their sociability is often contingent). Sometimes that purpose can be very narrow, such that the common notion of "extrovert" is not well suited for the Fieldmarshal. Same is true with the Inventor. The Inventor often appears like an Artisan Promoter, always interested in having an "interesting" time. Only the difference is the Inventor is "looking" for new experiences, new ideas, or some way to promote his ideas, so those who don't help in this endeavor are quickly cast off. That is, the Inventor is an "extrovert" with an interest (outer-directed might be a better term), and that specific interest often being so narrow that the term "extrovert" is misleading. Although in casual acquaintance they appear to be "extroverted."
This is exactly what I felt. I always thought I was not as social as my dad is, though I am distinctively expressed Extrovert. He is a typical Supervisor (ESTJ), good joiner, capable of making friends with nearly everyone around, much more earthling than me.
Your turn!
OK, if you follow me until here, which I would be surprised if you did, there is a good chance that you are interested in Jung Test.
Believe me, it’s such an interesting and useful tool of analysis that you will certainly find it helpful. and. . . as your friend, I am pretty interested in knowing your type! Come back and tell me about your temperament! I am a curious guy.
Last but not least interesting thing, take the Jung Marriage Test with your SO. I wish I had taken it years ago.
January 05 Curiosité n'est que vanitéCuriosité n'est que vanité. Le plus souvent, on ne veut savoir que pour en parler. - Blaise Pascal
Unfortunately, this statement is true over 90% of time. December 15 Rate your life
saw this test on a friend's friend's blog. . . a typical American test, i would call. For Chinese of my generation, it's almost inevidible to be rated low in both Spirit and Friends/Family, but I am pretty happy with the results. The questions are not interesting, somehow boring, but representative.
It is also very interesting to check the Statistics, by gender and esp., by age group. Most of them make sense.
August 21 Lost in BostonClaires et concises, mentionnées par de nombreux écrivains et re-citées par Hua, les Trois Lois de l'Homme étaient nées !
Première Loi
Deuxième Loi
Troisième Loi
Mais malheusement, la vie est aleatoire. On ne peut jamais prevenir ce que va passer dans le prochain moment. Ce midi quand Hua se levait, il ne savait pas qu'il serait assi dans un resto a Boston ce soir, ni ses amis, qui sont, malheusement, kidnapes par Hua.
Mais, la vie est belle, comme elle est aleatoire. Chaque moment de la vie est vivant, simplement parce qu'on n'arrive pas a savoir, a calculer, meme a deviner quelle est la suite.
On peut se perdre facilement dans la vie, autant facile qu'on puisse se perdre a Boston, a pied ou en bagnole. Ce qui nous permet de trouver la solution, n'est pas les signes de dieu, ni les signes traffiques perturbantes a Boston, mais qqch qu'on appele "curiosite", la curiosite de savoir le future.
Quand un homme est curieux d'une femme, les trois lois ne s'appliquent plus. En consequence, il est perdu. Il est perdu a Boston, il est perdu dans son coeur. Pauvre homme! June 20 L'insoutenable légèreté de l'êtreWhen I was a kid, curiosity lead me to the books. I was eager to know how the world functions. F = m a! How simple the Physics is, how beautiful the Physics is! It explains all!
Then I grew up, became a young man, some more subtle yet fundamental things in the life bothered me. I realized that F = ma is not the omnipotent solution. There is something above it. No, it is not E = mc^2. Yes, metaphysics, ancient Greek philosophers called it.
Again I look into books for answers: literature, history, and philosophy where I can find experience, resonance, and consolation. Indeed, the more you think over it, the meaning of life, the value of life, you realize more profoundly that you will never get an answer, a solution. The best you could expect is some experience, some resonance, and consolation, realizing that you were not there alone thinking over those abstract questions.
Life is sometimes too heavy, not only in the sense that you have to use most of your precious life to make a living, but in the sense that "Comfortably Numb" people choose to live so. Life is also too light, as a feather that flies, as something that will disappear tomorrow. Life is a period in which, because everything occurs only once and then disappears into the past, existence seems to lose its substance and weight. And history is just a repeat of lives.
What then shall we choose? Weight or lightness?
My humble answer is:
Eh bien, continuons. . .
The world exists. We exist. Between (good and bad, easy and tough) choices life continues. Respect the existence; Respect the free will of man, for Errare Humanum Est.
"L'histoire est tout aussi légère que la vie de l'individu, insoutenablement légère, légère comme un duvet, comme une poussière qui s'envole, comme une chose qui va disparaître demain." (M. K.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
8
8.7
6.8
5|
|
