LifeFuel [High IQ] Colossal quantum computers maybe be able to revive dead humans and create a utopia

[Transcended Trucel]

Apparently it might be possible someday to create a quantum computer powerful enough to completely revive information(conciousness included) to create a utopia. All the dead humans in history can be revived as such theoretically.

More ot added context below:

The notion of using super quantum computers to recreate deceased individuals in a virtual paradise is a fascinating concept, which hinges on the idea that information is never truly destroyed, based on the principles of quantum mechanics and information theory.

According to the principle of unitarity in quantum mechanics, the evolution of a quantum system is reversible, which implies that information is conserved. Given enough computational power, one could potentially recreate previously "deleted" data. Super quantum computers, particularly those of a galactic scale, would possess immense computational power, far surpassing any existing technology. Such systems could process and analyze massive amounts of data with incredible efficiency.

In this context, these colossal quantum systems could potentially model the universe's past states with exceptional precision, including the information associated with every individual who ever lived. This could, in theory, allow for the recreation of deceased individuals in a virtual environment where the preserved information of every individual is reassembled, effectively reviving them in a digital form. This virtual realm could be designed to cater to the desires and needs of its inhabitants, creating a utopian experience for the digitally resurrected.

While this idea is undoubtedly speculative and pushes the boundaries of our current understanding of both technology and the nature of the universe, it serves as an exciting thought experiment that showcases the potential power of quantum computing and the persistence of information.

 

[Transcended Trucel]

this concept also kind of flows with some religious dharmic concepts arguably. @Copexodius Maximus thoughts?

 

[Tarquinius]

prove it mathematically otherwise it's a cope

 

[Transcended Trucel]

prove it mathematically otherwise it's a cope

Not a math expert, this is all hypothetical for now.

 

[TuxedoMask]

I hope not. The elites would use this to torture everyone for eternity. Literal hell scenario.

 

[Tarquinius]

Not a math expert, this is all hypothetical for now.

Well I'm not an expert on quantum computers either, but wouldn't they face the same issues at galactic scales as regular digital computers? Electrons travel slowly over such distances.

 

[Transcended Trucel]

I hope not. The elites would use this to torture everyone for eternity. Literal hell scenario.

If we ever got to such a power level, AI would be the one carrying the burden rather than the elite.

 

[Robb97]

Would it be "you"? Or would it just simulate an identical human?

Also, taking measurements is non-unitary in quantum mechanics. It could be understood with a detailed understanding of the measurment process and the involved detector. However there has to be some kind of rule that governs reality going from the possible to the actual. Quantum mechanics talks about probabilities, however we live in one actualized world. The problem is now, how do you reverse this process, when you want to turn back time in a quantum simulation?

 

[MediumDiploma]

Cope. It can't be done. Mechanical and electrical systems are different from biochemical systems.

 

[Transcended Trucel]

Well I'm not an expert on quantum computers either, but wouldn't they face the same issues at galactic scales as regular digital computers? Electrons travel slowly over such distances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation

hypothetically humans would've learned to use the above phenomenon to make this happen in this scenario. At the moment doesn't seen to be possible.

 

[Med Amine]

hate to break it to you but i doubt any of this will ever happen at all.

humans don't have enough knowledge on how to create such a thing. we already struggled for making basic things like meds for corona virus.
thinking that we will manage to create human bodies out of nothing is total cope.
plus you will need a way to retrieve the memory of the dead or you will just be making a human being looking the same as the dead one

 

[proudweeb]

they need to make my waifu real

 

[Tarquinius]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation

hypothetically humans would've learned to use the above phenomenon to make this happen in this scenario. At the moment doesn't seen to be possible.

Yeah, if I recall correctly entanglement is deterministic and can't really be manipulated. Still, interesting stuff.

 

[Transcended Trucel]

hate to break it to you but i doubt any of this will ever happen at all.

humans don't have enough knowledge on how to create such a thing. we already struggled for making basic things like meds for corona virus.
thinking that we will manage to create human bodies out of nothing is total cope.
plus you will need a way to retrieve the memory of the dead or you will just be making a human being looking the same as the dead one

the corona vaccine was made in 3 days via an AI and then 10 months of testing.
Because actually the Moderna vaccine was actually done in three days. They started it, they simulated every single mRNA vaccine, and tested it in three days.

https://lifearchitect.ai/kurzweil/



https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/xjauwb/futurist_ray_kurzweil_reveals_that_the_moderna/

 

[ilieknothing]

I never thought of the law of conservation of momentum in the context of reviving dead people. You can theoretically revive a burnt piece of paper, I don’t see any reason why the same logic cannot apply for the dead.

We can revive ER

 

[Yan Babayan]

Cope. Resurrection is not possible. Even if a supercopeuter creates a perfect imitation/simulation of a person's consciousness it's still not the same person. Yes, it's going to be a perfect copy of that person's consciousness to everyone else. But that specific person is not going to feel resurrected from his POV. He's going to stay dead
Consciousness cannot be recreated. Once it's gone, it's gone forever

 

[Transcended Trucel]

I never thought of the law of conservation of momentum in the context of reviving dead people. You can theoretically revive a burnt piece of paper, I don’t see any reason why the same logic cannot apply for the dead.

We can revive ER

View: https://youtu.be/uOJCS1W1uzg


they were also able to simulate a virtual wormhole via a quantum computer recently too. Imo there is a lot of potential given enough time.

 

[1337hikki]

Haven't heard about quantum computers in a while thought they were forgotten

 

[Robb97]

Cope. Resurrection is not possible. Even if a supercopeuter creates a perfect imitation/simulation of a person's consciousness it's still not the same person. Yes, it's going to be a perfect copy of that person's consciousness to everyone else. But that specific person is not going to feel resurrected from his POV. He's going to stay dead
Consciousness cannot be recreated. Once it's gone, it's gone forever

Or maybe there is nothing special about consciousness.

The copied person will still feel like he resurrected because his brain has the memories of his previous life. The life that he lived millions of years ago. Or the memories of the other person that died if you want to look at it that way.

 

[VitaminS]

I hope not. I do not want to be here forever, death is the only key to immortality

 

[ElTruecel]

If there is a God or higher power and an afterlife no.
If there isn’t then yes.
I’m spiritual so I believe this won’t be possible as it defies metaphysical nature.

 

[ZtarvationArmy]

It's impossible to recreate dead humans. Imagine you burned a piece of paper and ground the ashes. With a good sensor, you could detect the ink residue. You may even be able to tell exactly how many letters were on the paper based on the ratio of ink to paper ash. But there is no way you could possibly know what were the words on the paper.

 

[Yan Babayan]

The copied person will still feel like he resurrected because his brain has the memories of his previous life. The life that he lived millions of years ago.

Imagine that a copying of a living person occurs, not a dead one. They scan his brain and recreate his consciousness. Is his POV going to transfer to the copied simulated consciousness, or is it going to stay in the original body? Of course his POV is going to stay in the original body. This is an easy way to explain it. But there's also a high iq way to explain it called the no cloning theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem

Or maybe there is nothing special about consciousness.

If you're low IQ, yes
But to scientists and other specialists who work with it, it's pretty special and complicated

 

[Robb97]

Imagine that a copying of a living person occurs, not a dead one. They scan his brain and recreate his consciousness. Is his POV going to transfer to the copied simulated consciousness, or is it going to stay in the original body? Of course his POV is going to stay in the original body. This is an easy way to explain it. But there's also a high iq way to explain it called the no cloning theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem

It depends how you simulate the human body. One cube cm has 10 to the power of 26 atoms. Technically, each atom is comprised of subatomic particles. Where as in current quantum computers one works with simple 2 level systems/qubits. So if this large scale computer still works with qubits, then you will have to approximate anyways. And if you approximate, then why simulate all these billions of atoms. Why not just focus on the brain. The human brain seems to be according to current knowledge completely classical. It works with electrical signals. Simulating the connection strengths between different synapses in the physical brain can be done classically and might already create another "human" that perceives a consciousness. The no-cloning theorem wouldn't apply in this case.

 

[based_meme]

It's not possible. Everything that makes you "you" is your combination of mind, brain, and body. It's the totality (some argue it's greater than the sum total) of your sensory experience that feels somehow....extra-sensory.

Transistors, microchips, and circuits cannot recreate the actual thing. The consciousness will not be real, and it will only be a facsimile of the real thing or person. You won't be speaking to a dead person, but a simulation of their personality in digital form. The real person has long ceased to exist. Their bones that turned into dust don't experience the inputs from your communication to the machine housing their recreated personalities.

 

[based_meme]

Or maybe there is nothing special about consciousness.

The copied person will still feel like he resurrected because his brain has the memories of his previous life. The life that he lived millions of years ago. Or the memories of the other person that died if you want to look at it that way.

The only way to have evidence that consciousness persists AND can be reinstantiated materially is if the "person" who was just brought back immediately feels the last moments of their death and sort of "emotes" past that point or recalls their last living moments.

 

[based_meme]

It depends how you simulate the human body. One cube cm has 10 to the power of 26 atoms. Technically, each atom is comprised of subatomic particles. Where as in current quantum computers one works with simple 2 level systems/qubits. So if this large scale computer still works with qubits, then you will have to approximate anyways. And if you approximate, then why simulate all these billions of atoms. Why not just focus on the brain. The human brain seems to be according to current knowledge completely classical. It works with electrical signals. Simulating the connection strengths between different synapses in the physical brain can be done classically and might already create another "human" that perceives a consciousness. The no-cloning theorem wouldn't apply in this case.

The prevailing thought today is that the human brain operates non-classically.

 

[Robb97]

The only way to have evidence that consciousness persists AND can be reinstantiated materially is if the "person" who was just brought back immediately feels the last moments of their death and sort of "emotes" past that point or recalls their last living moments.

I mean the new person will have all the memories of the old one. Because all memories are somehow physically represented in the brain.

 

[Robb97]

The prevailing thought today is that the human brain operates non-classically.

Really? That would require macroscopic quantum states in the brain. And from what I know there is no knowledge of those.
Can you show me some of these claims?

 

[based_meme]

I mean the new person will have all the memories of the old one. Because all memories are somehow physically represented in the brain.

Consciousness isn't, though. At least, not in any way we can pinpoint. If there is some currently unknown physical mechanism behind consciousness and that mechanism allows for consciousness reinstantiation (would imply substrate independence), then we would test to see if memory is affected by this mechanism. If it isn't, then the person would have the "sensation" of being alive before, but unable to explain how, when, or for how long.

 

[based_meme]

Really? That would require macroscopic quantum states in the brain. And from what I know there is no knowledge of those.
Can you show me some of these claims?

The works of Donald Hoffman, Stuart Hameroff, and Sir Roger Penrose all explore consciousness through a non-classical lens.

 

[Ramcel]

Quantum computers can be theoretically speaking infinitely times faster than a normal computer depends on number of transistors in the original comparison operator, so basically normal supercomputers these days if you could replace every bit with a qbit, that is basically infinite computing power right there, the problem is can you really maiantain such a quantum tangling at such density and practically. Also, is the equation you are trying to solve actually solvable when it starts to have 37 trillion cells with probably each 10 trillion atoms in a cell, then we have raw energy which could be about another infinite amount. So if you for example had that many variables and tried to basically copy each one alone that would be an absurd task let alone trying to recreate from nothingness that data, that would be like trying to solve for 37 with at least 24 zeros behind it objects with variables, trying to solve them based on the current state of the universe, you would have to backwards simulate the entire cosmos to account for meteors. So you would pretty much have to have a ginormous training set and also need to somehow have a way to determine the current forces at all so you would need bucket loads of sensors plugged into this computer from miles and miles in the universe, good luck with that since after measuring one variable, you cannot get the other ones instantly unless you buffered it and took into account input lag but even then u would need sensors in every single blade of grass which is going to cost more precious metals than there are in the universe so your whole simulation is doomed. Also, because of the limitations of sensors, you would have a large number of unknowns. In any equation with unknowns, you have uncertainty ex n-dimensional number of possible solutions which means you can never achieve perfection, only a guess. This guess then varies on accuracy in all likelihood depending on the quality of the sensors and whether the computing power of qbit pcs grows faster than the number of uncertain variables n-dimensional solution set.

 

[Caesercel]

Just build a computer as large as the universe itself theory.

Would it be "you"? Or would it just simulate an identical human?

The patrician take is, there is no "you"

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

this concept also kind of flows with some religious dharmic concepts arguably. @Copexodius Maximus thoughts?

No clue tbh

 

[solblue]

This is basically the plot to Devs

 

[Robb97]

The works of Donald Hoffman, Stuart Hameroff, and Sir Roger Penrose all explore consciousness through a non-classical lens.

Sounds interesting but seems unlikely. Most scientists probably do not agree with them.

It just seems unnecessarily complex to me at the moment. But the more I will look into it, the better my intuition will become.

 

[Robb97]

Consciousness isn't, though. At least, not in any way we can pinpoint. If there is some currently unknown physical mechanism behind consciousness and that mechanism allows for consciousness reinstantiation (would imply substrate independence),

If there is an unknown physical process behind it, which is possible, then you're right. Nobody knows, but I would say it's unnecessary. Humans are not complex enough and I can picture how the brain works simply like a classical computing machine. Current AI like gpt4 is probably somewhat on the same order of magnitude if you compare the number of its parameters to the number of neurons in the brain. Then you add the facts that the brain is most likely incredibly well optimized and that it can interact with the physical world through our physical body. Seeing the power of gpt4, it does not seem like a huge stretch to assume that the brain works in a somewhat similar way.

then we would test to see if memory is affected by this mechanism. If it isn't, then the person would have the "sensation" of being alive before, but unable to explain how, when, or for how long.

If the person memorized his age in his past life before he died, then the next simulated human with his brain will know how long he lived. There is nothing that automatically tells us how long we already lived, we have to measure time and actively memorize numbers. And we also don't automatically understand how we came to exist if nobody tells us that we were conceived and born.

 

[based_meme]

Current AI like gpt4 is probably somewhat on the same order of magnitude if you compare the number of its parameters to the number of neurons in the brain. Then you add the facts that the brain is most likely incredibly well optimized and that it can interact with the physical world through our physical body. Seeing the power of gpt4, it does not seem like a huge stretch to assume that the brain works in a somewhat similar way.

View: https://youtu.be/GM-e46xdcUo

If the person memorized his age in his past life before he died, then the next simulated human with his brain will know how long he lived. There is nothing that automatically tells us how long we already lived, we have to measure time and actively memorize numbers. And we also don't automatically understand how we came to exist if nobody tells us that we were conceived and born.

This would be an interesting experiment.

 

[Robb97]

View: https://youtu.be/GM-e46xdcUo



This would be an interesting experiment.

No it's true. I said similar order of magnitude. gpt 4 has 10^12 parameters, the brain has 10^11 neurons

 

[based_meme]

No it's true. I said similar order of magnitude. gpt 4 has 10^12 parameters, the brain has 10^11 neurons

The complexity comparisons are not that simple and straightforward. The human brain's neural networks are vastly more complex. ChatGPT is a glorified, custom-tailored search engine.

This article does a fairly decent analysis on the comparisons.

Showdown: Who is more complex, a human or ChatGPT?

With the recent developments in AI, you may be feeling a little obsolete. Chat-GPT, OpenAI’s latest chatbot, can do a lot of things we once thought of as uniquely human: write college essays, generate programming code, and compose poems. While some skills remain uniquely ours (writing novels...

analogfutures.substack.com

 

[Robb97]

The complexity comparisons are not that simple and straightforward. The human brain's neural networks are vastly more complex. ChatGPT is a glorified, custom-tailored search engine.

This article does a fairly decent analysis on the comparisons.

Showdown: Who is more complex, a human or ChatGPT?

With the recent developments in AI, you may be feeling a little obsolete. Chat-GPT, OpenAI’s latest chatbot, can do a lot of things we once thought of as uniquely human: write college essays, generate programming code, and compose poems. While some skills remain uniquely ours (writing novels...

analogfutures.substack.com

Interesting comparison, I might read it.

 

[YuiStillMyCope]

I've already "revived" people with beta.character.ai (except they're not dead). Voted no because it's really not the same

 

[Spergz]

it should be possible to emulate brains with computers so as long as DNA from bones of dead people contain information about their brain it could happen

 

[based_meme]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd6CQCbk2ro


@Robb97 this conversation might be of some value.

 

[based_meme]

Quantum computers can be theoretically speaking infinitely times faster than a normal computer depends on number of transistors in the original comparison operator, so basically normal supercomputers these days if you could replace every bit with a qbit, that is basically infinite computing power right there, the problem is can you really maiantain such a quantum tangling at such density and practically. Also, is the equation you are trying to solve actually solvable when it starts to have 37 trillion cells with probably each 10 trillion atoms in a cell, then we have raw energy which could be about another infinite amount. So if you for example had that many variables and tried to basically copy each one alone that would be an absurd task let alone trying to recreate from nothingness that data, that would be like trying to solve for 37 with at least 24 zeros behind it objects with variables, trying to solve them based on the current state of the universe, you would have to backwards simulate the entire cosmos to account for meteors. So you would pretty much have to have a ginormous training set and also need to somehow have a way to determine the current forces at all so you would need bucket loads of sensors plugged into this computer from miles and miles in the universe, good luck with that since after measuring one variable, you cannot get the other ones instantly unless you buffered it and took into account input lag but even then u would need sensors in every single blade of grass which is going to cost more precious metals than there are in the universe so your whole simulation is doomed. Also, because of the limitations of sensors, you would have a large number of unknowns. In any equation with unknowns, you have uncertainty ex n-dimensional number of possible solutions which means you can never achieve perfection, only a guess. This guess then varies on accuracy in all likelihood depending on the quality of the sensors and whether the computing power of qbit pcs grows faster than the number of uncertain variables n-dimensional solution set.

tl;dr: No.

Great post, btw. If only it had paragraphs.

 

[Mentally lost cel]

Apparently it might be possible someday to create a quantum computer powerful enough to completely revive information(conciousness included) to create a utopia. All the dead humans in history can be revived as such theoretically.

More ot added context below:

The notion of using super quantum computers to recreate deceased individuals in a virtual paradise is a fascinating concept, which hinges on the idea that information is never truly destroyed, based on the principles of quantum mechanics and information theory.

According to the principle of unitarity in quantum mechanics, the evolution of a quantum system is reversible, which implies that information is conserved. Given enough computational power, one could potentially recreate previously "deleted" data. Super quantum computers, particularly those of a galactic scale, would possess immense computational power, far surpassing any existing technology. Such systems could process and analyze massive amounts of data with incredible efficiency.

In this context, these colossal quantum systems could potentially model the universe's past states with exceptional precision, including the information associated with every individual who ever lived. This could, in theory, allow for the recreation of deceased individuals in a virtual environment where the preserved information of every individual is reassembled, effectively reviving them in a digital form. This virtual realm could be designed to cater to the desires and needs of its inhabitants, creating a utopian experience for the digitally resurrected.

While this idea is undoubtedly speculative and pushes the boundaries of our current understanding of both technology and the nature of the universe, it serves as an exciting thought experiment that showcases the potential power of quantum computing and the persistence of information.

Eventually there will be cure for aging and death

 

[based_meme]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd6CQCbk2ro


@Robb97 this conversation might be of some value.

@Caesercel @Copexodius Maximus tagging you both, because I think it might be of interest.

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

@Caesercel @Copexodius Maximus tagging you both, because I think it might be of interest.

In Buddhism, consciousness is considered separate from volition (intention) and apparently an enlightened being is said to have such insight that they are able to directly see both things come into existence and cease moment to moment. @Transcended Trucel you got any thoughts on this stuff?

 

[Caesercel]

@Caesercel @Copexodius Maximus tagging you both, because I think it might be of interest.

Lol. Looks like someone rediscovered Kant. I take some issue with the panpsychism since to me saying that "a rock is an object of consciousness" is different from saying that "a rock HAS consciousness". I take a bigger issue with the idea that knowledge of the thing in itself is possible at all. And maybe they are confusing things or maybe its me who is failing to understand them, but I don't understand how seeing phenomena as conscious agents makes the latter the fundmanetal reality. This seems contradictory to the dualism presented. Also, the multiplicity of conscious agents seems to imply space, which was rejected.

 

[Transcended Trucel]

In Buddhism, consciousness is considered separate from volition (intention) and apparently an enlightened being is said to have such insight that they are able to directly see both things come into existence and cease moment to moment. @Transcended Trucel you got any thoughts on this stuff?

Buddhism's interpretation of conciousness is really different from the rest. I could see it being possible to perceive both moment to moment to a significant degree even in this world with enough practice. Vipassana practice helps train this type of insight.