There’s a short story out there about a device that can actually do this and then let you stay in contact with your alternate self for a while to see how things turn out. Fascinating stuff.
There's another short story out there which assumes that when you die in one branched universe, you survive in another. So in your subjective experience, you always survive, no matter how low the chances. But eventually your survival requires stranger and stranger events to occur. After a thousand years, your subjective experience becomes utterly implausible, and yet there you are. But you may not like the universe in which you survive that long. Which is too bad, because you can't subjectively die.
I'll probably remember the title tomorrow, if nobody beats me to it. It was a fairly disturbing story.
Ah, thank you! That is it. Just as biting and dark as I remember it.
Greg Egan also has a number of stories about people who rebelled against a "many worlds" universe by porting human cognition to run on "Quantum Single Processors," which would carefully isolate themselves from the universe until they had made a single decision across every possible timeline. This didn't prevent them from being "branched" by outside factors, but it at least gave them an approximation of free will.
Greg Egan writes true sci-fi. Exploring what-ifs further than anyone has explored them, and putting them up in story format so you don't have to be Einstein.
I think MWI is appealing to a lot of people as part of the quiet, but ever-present undercurrent of "how can we make any sort of God totally unnecessary to the universe?" that science has, but if you think about it deeply enough, it becomes clear that MWI, if true, is unbelievably horrible. We'd all better hope it's not the correct interpretation.
Edit: Thanks for the link to the story. I had not read it or seen it before. Same principles for sure. I don't think it's a crazy extrapolation of MWI, I think it's the only logical outcome. I can put that opinion into more firm mathematical language but it's more than I can put into an HN comment, and I haven't typed it out anywhere else either, and it really is just that opinion, in more mathematical language.
Having a slew of physical theories with profound existential ramifications to choose from, why do you think the "many-worlds interpretation" is particularly connected to secularization?
As far as I’m concerned, believing in MWI is the realization that causality is not a function, but a relation (in the mathematical sense), and that actually feels more natural and inuitive, all things considered.
I think there was also a concept for scientifically testing the MWI, but that only works subjectively. You essentially play Russian roulette, preferably based on the outcomes of a quantum measurement. Repeat until you either die or are satisfied that the world you are in is so implausible as to be impossible unless indeed every outcome is realised.
Say, fire an electron at a double slit with a detector in one of the slits, and kill yourself if the particle is not detected. Run the experiment 10,000 times, or 100,000,000 times - one copy of you will eventually be satisfied that in any probabilistic interpretation of QM this is not plausible, and all the other copies will be dead.
This works because the MWI predicts that any outcome that has non-0 probability according to the Born rule will be guaranteed to happen (it just "happens less" by some hard to define metric).
Personally I believe the entire notion is absurd, and that this type of thought experiment makes it clear, but still some like to be contrary.
I arrived at this philosophy independently, so I tend to subscribe to it. Along the lines of The Secret and manifestation, I've noticed that whatever we think about tends to happen in reality (as above, so below).
So the main difference between someone like a Buddhist monk and a former US president with a taste for gold is one of choice. The monk acknowledges that all routes to living one's best life are possible so abstains from attaching to outcomes too strongly, while the former president asserts his ego to maximize a certain dimension like personal wealth at the expense of all the others. Too much choice and we risk being ungrounded, too little choice and we end up caught in a web of our own design.
There's a great scene on the show Vikings where Ragnar says:
Power is only given to those who are prepared to lower themselves to pick it up.
Really everything is possible, and we can use our will to sidestep into other realities. But from a framework of reincarnation and the multiverse, our choices can impose on the freedoms of others, so we should be mindful of the impacts of our decisions, because others are aspects of ourselves in another life.
I feel rather strongly that most of the world's problems like wealth inequality and war stem from overexertion of the ego. People constrain themselves into corners and then project their anxieties onto others to the point where it seems like nobody gets to live their best life.
I feel like this is the popular sentiment these days but I don't fully agree.
I've seen so many companies spend themselves to death and its easy to have it happen much faster than anybody in charge realizes.
I've also seen companies grow expenses as things go well and suddenly there's a massive downturn in the market and they can't recover in time. Meanwhile, more frugal companies have the runway to weather unexpected events.
So I still think there's more value in frugality than is generally accepted.
"Based on the Starlink website, that all satellites will be deployed below 600km. In this case, satellites may be visible during twilight but not after nightfall, greatly reducing the potential impact to astronomy."
It's the physics of the arrangement of satellite, sun, and Earth. The satellites are only visible due to reflected sunlight, and they're flying quite low for satellites, i.e. near to Earth. The nearer an orbital object is to Earth, the larger percentage of the arc of its orbit is occluded by the Earth's shadow.
Given their close proximity to Earth, they can reflect sunlight at dawn and dusk (when the sun is shining "along" the surface relative to the observer) but when an observer is in nighttime (i.e. within Earth's shadow), Earth blocks the path of light to reflect off the satellites and they won't shine. Hypothetically, they could still pass in front of distant objects and occlude them, but I'm assuming based on the way the problem is described that flooding a telescope with reflected light is more of a problem than occluding a distant object for a few moments.
There's nothing wrong with crying or in general showing or having emotions, "negative" or otherwise.
Some people just have that reaction to difficulty and frustration or whatever else, it doesn't have to mean that an environment is terrible or immoral if people cry about it sometimes.
Sometimes it’s going to be unavoidable. I used to work in help desk and at least once a week an employee would either cry, or take their phone out of the queue and storm out of the office, something to that effect. I remember two occasions where an employee punched a hole in the wall. I took a day off work because one of the callers threatened to come to the office with his gun if I couldn’t solve his problem.
Sometimes there are jobs that have to be done but that make it really hard to control your emotions. And some people have a really hard time controlling their emotions anyway. It’s better to have a safe place to let that out.
I'm sorry you had to go through that, but unless you work at a suicide hotline or one of the departments that tracks down child-porn creators or something along those lines, people breaking down at least once a week should not be "unavoidable." I know help desk is always going to be stressful, but employees need to be empowered to speak sternly to, and hang up on, abusive customers. If they're not, that's a management failure, not just an unavoidable reality.
Worked with a developer who had to leave the office temporarily one day to go outside and cry in his car.
Was in a team where he could have spoken to any of us and we all would have listened and helped, but I guess sometimes, some people, just need to be alone and cry.
I tell you it was fairly destabilizing working in a small office in a highrise in a city center. 90 minutes at best from home on two trains, open office plan in a small office space, it was like being in a cage, being so far from a space which was "mine". The only escapes were spending a long time commuting, walking around outside on busy city streets, or sitting in a bathroom stall.
I think the psychology has something to do with growing up on a few hundred acres.
Boy could I have used a crying room. Not to actually cry but just to escape for a while now and then.
I moved from the country to a city. Its been four years I still feel like this!
Out in the country I was five minutes walk from lochs and l forests. I used to be able to leave the house and walk for twenty plus miles and maybe see a handful of people. Just me, the outside and hours of alone time.
You dont realise how much you miss that! Now in a city with no car and its so hard to get away from everything. Jusy to get away and clear my head.
Yeah, I live alone but sitting inside my house unable to get out and away from life can feel so trapping.
Trusted Insight | Full-Stack Web Developer | San Francisco or REMOTE (USA) | https://www.thetrustedinsight.com/ | Full Time or Part Time
Trusted Insight is a well-funded startup building Fund Studio - a "CRM" for the Venture Capital and Investment industries helpings LPs and GPs manage and evaluate their investments.
We are looking for Full Stack developers to join our growing team. We're built on Python 3 and Django 2 on the backend and Angular 6 on the frontend. Machine Learning experience is also a plus.
Soooooo... if people use their standard password on this you'll be able to login as them as soon as you get any personally identifiable info - like email or FB account, right?
