Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum Archeology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 05:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum Archeology

Quantum Archeology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Quantum archeology is the "study of the scientific resurrection of the ancient dead, including their memories" whose origins lie in "reversing the idea of psychohistory from Asimov's Foundation trilogy". This appears to be a fringe theory, albeit one with little coverage under likely spellings of the term, if Google is anything to go by, and therefore may lack sufficient notability to justify an article. Sturm 19:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Amazingly, there seems to be one legitimate mention, though I strongly doubt it has anything to do with the drivel in this article. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply The strapline for Vlatko Vedral's talk was "Raiders of the lost entanglement", so I suspect it reflected his interests in quantum mechanics and information theory ("possible effects of entanglement in macroscopic systems, topological phases and one-way quantum computation"). --Sturm 21:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
        • reply'

er no, quite the oppposite. Professor Vedral is talking specifically about quantum archeaology, in fact gave a series of lectures on that subject at some of the most prestigeous institutes in the world. In fact haveing had chance some of his work, I'd conclude he is one of the world's great thinkers and was critically aware of his terminolgy. I'm greatful for the refernece and hope other begin to contribte to the article when the deletion tag is lifted as I'm heavily committed on internationally important work

ELDRAS (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Reply Thanks Clarityfiend, I've tidied it up a bit so I hope you dont still think it's drivel. Vlatko's papers at Los Alamos deal 'exactly' with this stuff ie the thermodynamic difficulties of quantum information recovery (cited below), and quantum archeology is an attempt at a method of compensation for this by directly tackling the 2nd law of thermodynamics as well as offering techniques founded in psychistory to describe historical states in the universe. I hadn't heard of him before your reference. I would have thought this debate is pretty pertinent for him but I can email him under wiki rules apparently. BTW I dont see a new filed as something that suddenly has masses on new work like a calculus, but as often the gathering and collaging of existing areas of work into one subject. So quantum archeology is really just an incremental step from assembled areas of probability, quantum theory, psycohistory (which itself emerged from Asimov's fiction...as indeed Wikipedia did (the galactic encylopdea in foundation trilogy) apparantlyELDRAS (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • delete This is original "research" (if not pure fantasy), if anything is. Either that or is it misrepresented as science when it should be about a series of fictional books. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • reply Well it's futurism and there are articles, courses and books coming out on it, which I've now tried to list on the article page.ELDRAS (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


  • Keep/merge This idea is a significant element in Tipler's Omega Point theory which is certainly notable. This article is not well-written but it is only two days old - see WP:BITE. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Question Is the idea known by this title? Because this is practically the entire documentation of "quantum archeology", which isn't exactly a promising demonstration of an academic subject's notability. --Sturm 22:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Reply good point it's a pretty new idea, some call it Quantum Resurrection, some Simulation. I'm unclear how to chage a page title, but we've been hammering it since about 2002 as quantum archeology on Mindx.ELDRAS (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Absolutely no evidence (in the form of reliable sources) that this is anything other than one guy's loony notion. Deor (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply There are a few looney notion guys then including the ones cited on the article, which I apologise for not having put up earlier. Also it's an idea not a scince at presnt, though it overlaps with psychistory which it is the mirro image of to achieve resrrection. You cant realy have relaible sources for an idea like a technology, it's iethre out there being debated or it isn't, and quite a few forums debate it, though I'm unsure of citing forums as references being new. I'm also concerned that as the speed of discovery and research is speeding traditional methods of peer review are not going to stay still. Forums are respectable areas to have honest work discussed and this trend will increase over peer reviewed magazines and books. In fact that's the whole idea behind Wiki!ELDRAS (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • reply So Deor- what magical mystical force do you claim makes the brain not subject to rational physical laws and makes it's processes uncomputable and uncopyable? "Quantum Archeology"- or Ancestor Simulation is an UNAVOIDABLE result of a mechanical universe- only a dualistic world-view where the mind is seen as supernatural would see QA as "loony" --Setai (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


  • Keep/do I get a vote?This is my first article & I've edited it since the challenge. Quantum computing is new but a reality and QA was a new idea that we mainly kicked about on emails and the forum. I think the idea is important but maybe the title could be changed. Quantum Archeology will enable reconstruction of many things from the past and the argument that human beings are no different gets howled at but is science. It's premise is that you should be able to backplot events because there are fewer histories than in present worlds. I'm interested in the successful formatting of a wiki article. ELDRAS (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ELDRAS (talk • contribs) 02:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Question (Well, actually, three questions.) Has this concept been published in any peer-reviewed journals? Has it been discussed in venues other than email and an online forum? And is this an idea of Tipler's, or does it merely draw inspiration from his work? Sturm 11:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • reply1. Nope not peer reviewed by this name though as the Nick Bostrom Simulation argument and Omega Point by Frank Tipler it has had wide idscussion in transhumanist circles and publications.

2. Yes in books like the one cited in Notes on Quantum Ressurrection and also the Physics of Immortality; in serveral online forums! It's the hottest idea in transhumanism at present, the other two being cryonics and A.I. 3. Yes it's Tipler's varying only by angle of a description of a method rather than actual resurrection as opposed to a simulated resurrection.

4 Sturm my idea was to set this page as a Stub and let people formulatead/detract from it, which noone's going to do if it has marked for deletion on it. There's enough people who debate transhumanist resurrection. Frank thinks it'll happen at the end of time n a simulation, and quantum archeology assumes it'll happen for real when processing power increases. Either way I cant afford any more time on it. CheersELDRAS (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Absolutely keep- the idea is new but is very important- consider that the only way to refute Quantum Archeology is to claim that there is some mystical aspect of the body and brain that are not subject to the laws of physics and so cannot be duplicated or copied- therefore QA is an axiomatic result of the physical case of the Church–Turing thesis - this sort of idea is not at all controversial in theoretical computer science and Digital Physics circles- Setai (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Question Are you the Setai who responded to a new MindX forum post called Wiki's going to delete Quantum Archeology!!!, in which a forum member called "eldras" urged people to "contrubute to the wiki article or it'll be deleted"? Sturm 13:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
      • ReplyGet real Sturm-, not everyone's goluming about in the darkness. setai posted there that he HAD posted here, -& quoted it. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by ELDRAS (talk • contribs) 21:59, 10 February 2008
        • Reply This was a rhetorical question to inform this discussion of the thread's existence. If we're going to get new editors coming to this discussion off the back of that forum post, people have a right to know. --Sturm 22:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Reply I'd already stated the MINDX reference the day before if you'd care to check this thread, and whilst it's true I didn't know the protocols it is absurd to delete this article which DOES have coverage in the science community.

It's an absurd weakness in wiki that a new page is deleted or kept by a vote which can be by people ignorant of the subject or it's importance in a community, because I would wager an administrator would just count yeas and nay without reading the page in question or area more than cursorialy; though it is possibly an inevitable protocol. I've also probably wrongly assumed you are an administrator who decides whether to delete it or not. But I'm glad to have fneced with you and sorry you find the idea of Quantum Archeology a challenge to your own beliefs.ELDRAS (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


I'm new & therefore weak at wiki protocols and apologize if this may be better as a stub...if you think that move it there? You may be reacting to the enormity of the idea which most people seem to at first.ELDRAS (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Tipler's argument is much more theoretical, and extending his theory to this is a very considerable extrapolation. Thee is not really any support for this from reliable sources at present, at least none that has been cited here. Possibly an article can be written on it, based on what real sources there may be, but the first step would be to delete this one. DGG (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
    • Reply I dont accept that the internet hasn't changed the way ideas are discussed and emerge. If an idea has support it should be listed in some form or wiki doesn't represent the real world. Online forums are used by the scientific community much more than peer reviewed papers now:-you cant just ignore then and not accept them as popular culture. Also this is an idea not a science thesis and wiki does list ideas. I dont think deleting it would help the idea be referenced: acceptance is a subjective thing I'm on no campaign. The idea stands or fails on it's own merit.

But clearly more than one looney thinks it notable! I cant accept there's a protocol for deseminating an idea which is different from a scientific theory and including it IS consistant with wiki policy.ELDRAS (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

    • Reply Sturm you are NOT neutral on this now editing out stuff on the page you want to delete. I mean you are not judging this on the idea current and not the substance of the idea which I understand you may not like & of course I respect that eg you've voted against it but just deleted some now...including the Notes ref to the originator of Omegta Point Theory who is crucial to the debate: you're edit says it's not relevant. You clearly haven't read it.

It's pivotal & it's where Tipler extracted it from. FYR: de Chardin though progress would evolve to a focal point in the future by evolution, where everything possible would happen. That is Tipler's argument for Simulation, and Nick Bostrom's argument for multi imulation...both of whom are indisputably famous & world class scientists, one of whom supports this.ELDRAS (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

      • Reply I removed two references which appeared to have been tossed in at random. Tipler's and Chardin's respective usages of the term "omega point" were not precisely the same thing. And Vlatko's talk on "Quantum Archeology" was likely not discussing resurrection. --Sturm 00:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Reply' you miss my point. Why are you editing the artcle at all if you propsoed and still seem to believe it should be deleted?

I didn't say Vlatko was talking about resurrection but about Quantum Archeology.

Here are some refs of his work:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/

I draw your attention to one at random that is specifically relevant:

arXiv:quant-ph/0407151 Title: Thermodynamical Cost of Accessing Quantum Information Authors: K. Maruyama, C. Brukner, V. Vedral Comments: 3 figures Journal-ref: J. Phys. A 38, 7175 (2005) Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)

Your post at the other site looks like you may be changing your mind on dleting this article, possibly because I'm tidying it up and editing it. I dont really wish to go to a tribunal/appeal thing as I'm seriously involved in stuff.

ELDRAS (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • How is that article relevant? It doesn't talk about resurrection or quantum archaeology. It talks about quantum information retrieval which looks like a perfectly valid topic within quantum information theory but something completely different from resurrecting or simulating people. On the positive side, Pickover's book surely seems to be about the topic; on the basis of that I lean towards keeping the article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply I'll tell you specifically how it's relevant: the methodology of quantum archeology. You are describing a human being as a description of information. Memories involve electro-cehmeicla impulses that Penrose thought preceded quantum calculation in the brain in 'tubules'. I dont agree with hium and briefly discussed his idea with prof Susan Greenfield in a lecture, though she awaits evidence of his idea. That's irrlevant really, because it;s still about reconfiguring the past using quantum information retrieval. This paper is specifically about that. There are loads of papers on this area.

The whole point that is NOT roicket science is that resurrecting people is NOT different from resurrecting information. Tipler has shown that you can describe a person as computation.

He should have got a nobel prize for his work in my view. I reemeber I had a physical reaction when I yook up his book by chance in the bookshop, bought it and stamped back the next day yelling THIS DOES NOT TELL ME HOW TO RASWE THE DEAD I WAMT MY MONEY BACK. They coughe up, but some of his work haunted me and I rebought it. It does say that and quantum archeology is an easy not a revolutionary deduction from it.

You are information...that is, the universe is the set of veents i the world and the laws that govern them. That includes a Man and Tipler's profound work shows man is not only just like an animal, as Darwn had, but now is just like a bunch of atoms...which is information ( I prefer to call it 'data theory' to get rid of the subjective description), but it's just terminology. Thanks for your lean Jitsea Niesen.ELDRAS (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


  • Keep The article needs a lot of work, but it does contain a lot of material that can be salvaged.--Michael C. Price talk 23:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Incoherent conflation of random half-understood ideas and references, almost certainly an OR synthesis. For example: "There are always more variables in the cosmos than there were is history allowing enough information to be gathered to reconstruct any historical event down to the quantum particle" - say what ??? And why call it Quantum Archeology when it assumes a deterministic universe i.e. the complete opposite of quantum physics ? I guess someone just thinks Quantum makes the article sound sexy. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • reply By variables I mean as seen by genetic algorithm tanks where an event is an algorithms. THe number of events in the presnet universe is unidsputably greaterr than at anytime in history even discounting the multiverse.

The arly universe was relatively simple. to back tace is MUCH esier than forward predict. Surely that makes siense to you? It's called quantum archeology because that's the name that emerged, thogh loads were tried. and it sort of invokes quantum computing which will be the prefered method of using it as the computaion capacity at 20 qubits is more than we dare imagine!ELDRAS (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


      • reply ...'there are always more variables in the cosmos etc' what;s the problem there? 'Say what?' isn't an argument/objection.

Ho! Quantum doesn't mean something is non-determinist Gandolf! Everett sorted all that out...quantum colloq. means very small -or in physics (wiki) the plural of quanta 'an indivisible entity'. The point about QA is that it's been well thrashed out on different disciples and the fact it's grouped post Tipler now is hardly that big of a surprize. Quantum in Quantum Archeology has been in use from about 2003 (5 years s a long time in physics) because it involves quantum computation which is also an emerging field. I dont blame you attacking it, because it is radical when you first come across it, but it HAS been out there for a while. As for OR I wish I was that bright. You might tyr reading it up on a wiki search under it's various names.CheersELDRAS (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

    • reply it is called Quantum Archeology or Quantum Reconstruction/Resurrection because the method of reconstruction is the simulation of Hilbert Space- specific or general states corresponding to the brain/body/environmental states of intelligent observers would be extracted from the bulk computation of Hilbert Space [it is axiomatic in QM that all possible observer states lie in Hilbert Space]- determinism is NOT opposed to Quantum Mechanics- every quantum state is absolutely deterministic- while all quantum histories are non-deterministic and established by the Born Rule- so specific states of observers in an Ancestor Simulation are deterministic and computable- the Born Probabilities of the past histories of such complex states are also determined due to the nature of causality/entropy- again Quantum Archeology can only be dismissed if some supernatural aspect of mind makes it different from all other quantum systems- there is no legitimate basis for deletion- the article needs only to be refined- not removed! --Setai (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • DELETE: The tell-tale sign is that most of the references are admitted in the article to not be about this subject as such. Wikipedia has far too much text on fringy stuff as it is, but at least we have some proof that there is some persistent belief in it. A discussion on a forum is insufficient proof, and other than the discussion in the article, that's all there is. This is a textbook-ready example of the sort of thing WP:NOR was intended to forbid.
While I'm at it, I'll note that User:Setai has only participated in this AFD. Mangoe (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • reply this is incorrect- I have edited several science and electronic music entries at wiki over the years- including a section in the old Quantum Immortality discussion page [see which survivor-states are more probable?] about how Ancestor Simulation has implications for QI in that it is far more probable that an observer at death will awaken as an archeological reconstruction than in a quantum history where they miraculously survive [which is the standard QI conjecture]- I just happened to register before posting in this AFD discussion- before I simply edited and signed my name without a log-in- and I am very glad ELDRAS gave me a heads-up- this subject is tremendously underreported- since the dawn of rational thought and the discovery that Man is matter subject to physical laws and not magic- we should have realized that death was technologically reversible in principle and that our primitive notions of observer oblivion don't work in a materialistic universe with consistent rules- --Setai (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not necessary to say "reply" -- we can tell that. And while I see a couple of edits from you as a bare IP address, the evidence still says that you are someone who is in Wikipedia as an advocate for these ideas, and not as an editor per se. Mangoe (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply

I'm only interested in the policy of deletion here & not at all in any politics you may perceive:

Wiki's policy for deletion involves 4 heads:

1. Violation of copyright.

2. Content that does not belong in an encyclopedia.

3. Content not verifiable in a reliable source.

4. Unreferenced negative content in biographies of living persons

1 & 4 are definiately not in breech.

2. is not deletable, as there is MUCH public interest in the area, and I reiterate, lectres, publications, debates. There are already well established entries in wiki dealing with it under different names...have you READ the page? It is a KNOWN an area of study with references in the Notes.

3. The sources cited are verifiable but few by the specific name which has only formulated from forum groups since 2002/3. see eg ancestor simulation


To successfully delete this you would have to argue the second point sucessfully.

Although it's subjective, the fact there are published, verifiable sources means that it is a notable.


BTW one of the commonest responses to newbies to Quantum Archeology is emotional rejection!

This page was only meant as a stub and I have already and again apologise for not knowing how to have set that up. Happy to have this renamed 'quantum resurrection' or reduced to a stub, but to delete it would need to fail on better grounds than you suggest.

The first book I can find dealing with Quantum Resurrection was only published in 2006 and cited in New Scientist in 2007 (see Notes on wiki page).

You may find that an encyclopedea is a list of 'fingey stuff' that becomes 'common stuff' as people read it! Maybe you would be kind enough to post of list of 'fingey stuff' you think people shouldn't read, and also a list of probable secret conspiracies that should be investigated. And finally why the amount of volume of wikipedia is an issue for anything being deleted, and what you thinki the memory capacity of the internet is nd at what parts it is bursting with web pages floating out of the telephone exchange into your interesting world?ELDRAS (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC) ELDRAS (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


    • comment

I'm new to wiki and I guess people have assumed I'm putting some peice of science wroting up here. I'm not. I also I guess thought wiki was a repository of ideas current. It isn't it's an encyclopedia.

Ok but just like the printing press changed the world, the www has changed the world.

There is a real problem about articles being deleted on wiki I have heard and I canm see some eg a baseball team entry that is deleted for being unnoteworthy???

If wiki is to sutrvive and it may or may not...may because people get a kick out of entering our posts, may not because machines will carry that task soon and the personal kick wont be there, also the semantic web is coming fast, and like the WWW no-one knows how to understand what it does.

May not unless it adapts...the world is different today from what it was 3 years ago.

In two years time it will be different.


1000 people on average are reponsible for editing wiki by category.

More and more work is done on forums, chatgroups, IRC's that are not really documented and email.

THe mobile indstry is going to boom like nothignwe've seen and there have been drawing board systems for thought control of keyboard action and wearable computers eg hardbands.


The issue is data communication but at some stage it will no longer be cool or necessary to input data at all, intelligent software will manipulate any sequence you need, and ....er I'm just wondering who I'm talking to here??? Apart from pleading ignorance I mean.

It;s a great kick to get a web page you made on wiki but I wonde if the kick's wearing off.

Oh yep, wiki HAS to move with the pace or it's be o=vertaken.

That sounds not possible?

Consider the semantic web.... You type in a search tems like you do to google and wiki combo, and the semantic web brings RELEVANT summarized calibre information for you.

Sounds impossible but it's about to explode on the www and Tim's been on it for years.

The other info sourcing is by topic like CYC.


wiki WANTS to be an encyclopedia that's alive.

But everything is on the semantic web and the relevancy focus is better than wiki potentially.

Wiki is a community as i see it, and sometimne I get an article that is so bad I wonder how the hell this got there...same with any book.

But the futrure of the web is NOT the book form...and to insist on peer reveived articole sfor an idea that's new and buzzing in forums or discussions off and on the web is quite limiting.

THat forces people off wiki and into chatgroups, because the knowledge on wiki isn't current enough.

I dont wnat to wait until a paper is peer reveiewed eg in my own filed A.I.l...I want to get it as soon as the boffin knows he's cracked a problem.

And I'll take it in a raw state if that's where he's at.

Usenet was the foreruner of wiki & wiki solved the problem of flames and tons of junk articles by a sort of moderator sensor.


That was a big improvement.


But what if like me you are soecificially interested in the edge? the very front of subjects?

Does that need a 'wikinew' category that is not yet TRADITION.

No No there is knowledge but ideas are alspo important.

Google and not wiki sorts out popularity by use because almost noone (at a guess) searches just wiki for a subject as it often doesn't list it, but the semantic web is going to dwarf that and anyone not evolving....and I'm arguing wiki has to allow debates in groups as notable...wil be history.

freinds reunited had a god run. As soon as facebook came it doesn't exist. That wasn't in 5 years, it was in 5 months.

This is virtual machine evolution and there can be a cambrian explosion OR a wipe out.

I urge you to relax wiki's draconian constraigns to allow emerging technologies be sourced in forums and groups.

THe only thing we all agree on is that there are a lot of fools aboutELDRAS (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, what I agree is that a long disquisition such as this is evidence against your position. Wikipedia is not for emerging ideas; it is for emerged ideas. My personal opinion here is that this is a lot of philo-babble, and if I had my way this sort of thing would have a big sticker at the top were it included. The important problem is that I cannot see that it is well-documented babble. From what we can tell, it's just something a few of you guys got together in a blog and made up one day. It needs to have a bigger impact on the world before we say, "yes, we need to document this." Mangoe (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.