We know it is a dumb idea to attempt (quantum) suicide. We’re pretty confident it is a dumb idea to do simple algorithms increasing one’s redundancy before pleasant realizations and reducing it afterward.
It sounds as if you are refusing to draw inferences from normal experience regarding (the correct interpretation of) QM. There is no “Central Dogma” that inferences can only go from micro-scale to macro-scale.
From the macro-scale values that we do hold (e.g. we care about macro-scale probable outcomes), we can derive the micro-scale values that we should hold (e.g. care about Born weights).
I don’t have an explanation why Born weights are nonlinear—but the science is almost completely irrelevant to the decision theory and the ethics. The mysterious, nonintuitive nature of QM doesn’t percolate up that much. That is why we have different fields called “physics”, “decision theory”, and “ethics”.
QM has to add up to normality.
We know it is a dumb idea to attempt (quantum) suicide. We’re pretty confident it is a dumb idea to do simple algorithms increasing one’s redundancy before pleasant realizations and reducing it afterward.
It sounds as if you are refusing to draw inferences from normal experience regarding (the correct interpretation of) QM. There is no “Central Dogma” that inferences can only go from micro-scale to macro-scale.
From the macro-scale values that we do hold (e.g. we care about macro-scale probable outcomes), we can derive the micro-scale values that we should hold (e.g. care about Born weights).
I don’t have an explanation why Born weights are nonlinear—but the science is almost completely irrelevant to the decision theory and the ethics. The mysterious, nonintuitive nature of QM doesn’t percolate up that much. That is why we have different fields called “physics”, “decision theory”, and “ethics”.