Quantum Immortality

[Stinger]

I posted this over at INTJforum.com and got no reply so I figured I'd come over here and see what all you INTP dudes think.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In quantum mechanics, quantum suicide is a thought experiment, originally published independently by Hans Moravec in 1987 and Bruno Marchal in 1988, and independently developed further by Max Tegmark in 1998. It 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 thought experiment, from the cat's point of view. Quantum immortality refers to the subjective experience of surviving quantum suicide regardless of the odds.

Keith Lynch recalls that Hugh Everett took great delight in paradoxes such as the unexpected hanging. Everett did not mention quantum suicide or quantum immortality in writing, but his work was intended as a solution to the paradoxes of quantum mechanics. Lynch said "Everett firmly believed that his many-worlds theory guaranteed him immortality: His consciousness, he argued, is bound at each branching to follow whatever path does not lead to death", Tegmark explains, however, that life and death situations do not normally hinge upon a sequence of binary quantum events like those in the thought experiment.


Read more on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum...nd_immortality or wherever else your research takes you.

So... thoughts?

 

[addictedartist]

A real man never dies; even if he's killed.

 

[OrLevitate]

http://cheerleading.lovetoknow.com/how-cheer-when-you-are-your-period

 

[onesteptwostep]

this is like atheist heaven, right?

:P

i could see this having application in buddhism and hinduism

wasn't this like the basis for that one movie? Source Code or whatever?

 

[Architect]

lol ... why is the that the word 'quantum' makes perfectly reasonable people lose their heads?

 

[SpaceYeti]

lol ... why is the that the word 'quantum' makes perfectly reasonable people lose their heads?

As Star Trek shows us, "Quantum" events mean anything can happen!

Big hole in space? "Quantum" anomaly.
Extra potent torpedoes? "Quantum" torpedoes.
Losing against the Borg? Take advantage of "Quantum" fluctuations in their shields.
Teleporter malfunctioning? "Quantum" energy beings.

It's whatever you want it to be.

 

[Cognisant]

If you're standing right next to a nuclear bomb when it goes off there is no reasonable chance of survival however assuming multiverse theory is true and there's infinite universes in which an infinite variation of outcomes may occur then in at least one of them you will somehow survive despite the mind boggling improbability of it.

In another universe you will spontaneously become a potato.

In another universe the bomb won't explode but you will.

In another universe the bomb will turn into a unicorn and perform oral sex upon you.

My point is that when you're talking about hypothetical possibilities well beyond the point of any degree of reasonable probability the discussion itself becomes pointless, and frankly irrelevant, your "Quantum Immortality" is nothing but a finite set in an infinite array of outcomes, you'll still die far more often than you don't and if knowing there's another you out there gives you some kind of existential satisfaction then alright, whatever.

There's still a near infinite probability that you're not going to live forever by sheer dumb luck.

 

[SpaceYeti]

If you're standing right next to a nuclear bomb when it goes off there is no reasonable chance of survival however assuming multiverse theory is true and there's infinite universes in which an infinite variation of outcomes may occur then in at least one of them you will somehow survive despite the mind boggling improbability of it.

In another universe you will spontaneously become a potato.

In another universe the bomb won't explode but you will.

In another universe the bomb will turn into a unicorn and perform oral sex upon you.

My point is that when you're talking about hypothetical possibilities well beyond the point of any degree of reasonable probability the discussion itself becomes pointless, and frankly irrelevant, your "Quantum Immortality" is nothing but a finite set in an infinite array of outcomes, you'll still die far more often than you don't and if knowing there's another you out there gives you some kind of existential satisfaction then alright, whatever.

There's still a near infinite probability that you're not going to live forever by sheer dumb luck.

In theory, granting infinite time or universes or whatever, anything and everything imagineable will happen. However, I disagree. Just because your mind comes up with something, it doesn't mean it's possible. For example, whast are the odds of rolling a seven on a six sided di? How about if I give you infinite rolls? Just because you have an infinite number of di rolls, it doesn't mean you're ever going to roll a seven. Things will only happen if they're possible.

 

[Cognisant]

Technically matter can just pop in and out of existence.

However the probability of this is very, very low.
And I'm talking about single atoms here, for a shitload of atoms to just spontaneously appear to form a D20 is many, many magnitudes more improbable.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Technically matter can just pop in and out of existence.

However the probability of this is very, very low.
And I'm talking about single atoms here, for a shitload of atoms to just spontaneously appear to form a D20 is many, many magnitudes more improbable.

Potentially even impossible. In which case it will never happen. The problem is more our ignorance about probability and possibility than what might actually happen.

 

[Yellow]

^^^ Reality would theoretically apply to all potential universes. Unless the other universes had other laws. But I still doubt that flying will ever be a matter of throwing yourself at the ground and missing.

Either way, if you are standing near a bomb that explodes in one universe. In another, the bomb may not go off. In yet another, you may not be standing near the bomb. So, in theory, you live on in the universes where you are away from the bomb or where the bomb doesn't go off.

The biggest flaw I see with this whole concept is, in the vast, vast majority of alternate universes, you wouldn't exist at all. Does the theory of many worlds insist that there are an infinite number of them? Because lets say that there are a very generous, but finite number of them. Say, 300 trillion other universes. Odds are that you'd exist in only this one, and you'd still be lucky to do so.

Edit: Hell, odds are that humans in general may only exist in this one. A lot of coincidences had to fall into place for our species to arise on this little planet around this medium sized star in this edge of our specific galaxy.

 

[SpaceYeti]

^^^ Reality would theoretically apply to all potential universes. Unless the other universes had other laws. But I still doubt that flying will ever be a matter of throwing yourself at the ground and missing.

Either way, if you are standing near a bomb that explodes in one universe. In another, the bomb may not go off. In yet another, you may not be standing near the bomb. So, in theory, you live on in the universes where you are away from the bomb or where the bomb doesn't go off.

The biggest flaw I see with this whole concept is, in the vast, vast majority of alternate universes, you wouldn't exist at all. Does the theory of many worlds insist that there are an infinite number of them? Because lets say that there are a very generous, but finite number of them. Say, 300 trillion other universes. Odds are that you'd exist in only this one, and you'd still be lucky to do so.

Edit: Hell, odds are that humans in general may only exist in this one. A lot of coincidences had to fall into place for our species to arise on this little planet around this medium sized star in this edge of our specific galaxy.

There are 101 universes, and killing all your other selves means you become God. Just watch out for your other self who does Tai Chi instead of Jeet Kun Do. Keep a gun around for when you face him.

 

[Architect]

As Star Trek shows us, "Quantum" events mean anything can happen!

No that's transporter accidents. Holodeck accidents takes second place. Quantum events were like "huh, that's strange".

 

[Cognisant]

Potentially even impossible. In which case it will never happen. The problem is more our ignorance about probability and possibility than what might actually happen.

If anything does exists then anything could exist, albeit momentarily.

Otherwise you're assuming that our universe/existence is somehow special or the only way it could be and that just seems absurd.

 

[SpaceYeti]

If anything does exists then anything could exist, albeit momentarily.

Otherwise you're assuming that our universe/existence is somehow special or the only way it could be and that just seems absurd.

Well, then you might want to consider the fact that when matter comes into existence, it's in the form of matter and anti-matter. There are three things to consider, here;

1. Would there actually be enough energy there to produce that much mass in the first place, and...

2. If there is enough energy there, then why didn't somebody notice there was so much heat and it was probably melting shit and exploding, and how did it stay there? also...

3. Even if the energy did go undetected and then formed matter, it would be matter and an equal part anti-matter and it would then explode, and it would probably be the cause of this nuclear explosion we were talking about in the first place!

Now, I'm not saying this is actually impossible, I'm only noting that we don't know that it is possible or impossible, thus we really couldn't say it would happen given infinite universes. Only that it might happen. Maybe.

 

[Yellow]

There are 101 universes, and killing all your other selves means you become God. Just watch out for your other self who does Tai Chi instead of Jeet Kun Do. Keep a gun around for when you face him.

..but ..but ..I'm the one who does Tai Chi... and I've just looked up Jeet Kune Do and I'm pretty sure that self would be able to kick my ass in under thirteen seconds. Looks like I will have to give up my life of pacifism, put away my bow and arrow, and learn how to use a gun. First, how does one acquire a firearm in general?

 

[SpaceYeti]

..but ..but ..I'm the one who does Tai Chi... and I've just looked up Jeet Kune Do and I'm pretty sure that self would be able to kick my ass in under thirteen seconds. Looks like I will have to give up my life of pacifism, put away my bow and arrow, and learn how to use a gun. First, how does one acquire a firearm in general?

... I don't remember him having a bow and arrow. I guess... maybe you don't get the reference?

 

[Yellow]

... I don't remember him having a bow and arrow. I guess... maybe you don't get the reference?

I really didn't.
I was dramatically describing myself. Is there really a movie about someone from an alternate universe being pummeled by someone using Tai Chi?

 

[SpaceYeti]

The One, Jet Lee. It's awesome.

 

[addictedartist]

Survivability would include the means to be away from said nuclear explosion in any given situation.
;and the theory of many worlds at its roots fails to apprehend the full gravity of the concept of one world, the branches reach into entirely different grades of particles, you cannot make an apple an orange however the distinctions would remain even if you renamed them, ultimately a person cannot be made more alive or more dead, it is a line in the sand which we don't cross until we do. It is the time travelers paradox; if we could cross to new dimensions how would we ever know if the one we return to would be genuine?

Alternately perhaps the nazis were just testing quantum immortality with those gas chambers; that thought devolved from thinking of a Schrodinger's cat that had a working knowledge of poisonous gasses timed electrical engineering and/or possess the ability to escape/survive containment (as well as opposable thumbs just for lulz)

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Using many worlds interpretation coupled with quantum theories is like telling a layman joke.

For the most part quantum physicists ignore Everett and many worlds interpretations and said many worlds proponents ignore the fact that their idea cannot be tested.

Since it cannot be tested it's a waste of time and this thread is a joke.
Not surprised you didn't get a reply. Basically this thread is akin to asking another god question.

 

[Jennywocky]

That. ^^ I mean, what can be stated with any degree of certainty? With decoherence, the subject is deemed dead; the other perspective suggests that if there is always a 50% chance of survival, thus there is at least one reality for certain where the subject is alive... but it's pure conjecture and is not testable/observable. I'm also curious about the impact of "splitting" -- once a reality branches, are there two subjects, and then two more subjects, and so on? i.e., is the survivor "me" as in my current locus of control, or are the "dead me" and the "theoretically surviving me" me divergent beings?

If you're standing right next to a nuclear bomb when it goes off there is no reasonable chance of survival however assuming multiverse theory is true and there's infinite universes in which an infinite variation of outcomes may occur then in at least one of them you will somehow survive despite the mind boggling improbability of it.

In another universe you will spontaneously become a potato.

In another universe the bomb won't explode but you will.

In another universe the bomb will turn into a unicorn and perform oral sex upon you...

I'll take that last one for $500, Alex.
(come on, Audio Daily Double!)

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I don't get how an alternate "me" spawned about by a different arrangement of events could be considered "me" in any meaningful or spiritual way.

It clearly seems to be a different entity, separate from my own.

 

[Brontosaurie]

cognisant confirmed completely clueless in epistemology

sorry bro

we're always in disagreement anyway so no hard feels.

(this applies only if you actually believe in multiverses and let's call it "chance realism" - it was slightly unclear whether you do or not and i'm willing to benefit you)

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

cognisant confirmed completely clueless in epistemology

Would you explain why?
Swift judgements are great n' all, but I don't know what is your point.
Rate everyone participating in this thread in epistemology then if you will.

 

[Black Rose]

if some people can not avoid torture by the augment in some world you will never be tortured and in others you will always be tortured: how do you become any part of any world with or without torture or with or without death. i have felt pain before so death seem likely to happen as it is not possible to avoid pain? they only way i guess to survive death would be if death is survived not in another world but in this only real world by some mechanism i.e. spirit fluff / quantum dust entanglement waves. coherency is why our brains experience awareness but can you have coherency without a brain?

 

[kora]

http://cheerleading.lovetoknow.com/how-cheer-when-you-are-your-period

*waits for someone to comment*

Okay, I'll take the bait. Orlevitate wtf are you doing.

sorry for troll feeding guyzz

 

[OrLevitate]

Foreshadowing 10/10

 

[redbaron]

http://m.wikihow.com/Pick-Your-Nose-Inconspicuously

 

[OrLevitate]

there was this one kid in middle school who would cup his left hand over his nose while picking his nose with his right hand

 

[redbaron]

i remember one of my friends in high school would pretend to be clearing his eyes with his index finger while using his thumb to pick his nose

 

[Grayman]

i remember one of my friends in high school would pretend to be clearing his eyes with his index finger while using his thumb to pick his nose

That's so dishonest! I cannot believe he did that.

 

[TBerg]

Thank you guys for changing my mind on multiverse theory. Not that my belief in the multiverse was that educated, but now the multiverse seems more preposterous.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Would you explain why?
Swift judgements are great n' all, but I don't know what is your point.
Rate everyone participating in this thread in epistemology then if you will.

you did the job explaining why multiverse is nonsense. my post was kind of a chiming in to that.

chance realism is nonsense for basically the same reason. anthropomorphism, lack of falsifiability and violation of parsimony. maybe it's just another aspect of the same fallacy.

i have no interest in rating more people (with cognisant it's kind of a beef because he projects this "science motherfuckers, no bias, i'm a cyborg, determinism bro" persona and then apparently subscribes to free will superstition in disguise). but your rating would be high. why do you seem offended? getting the vibe lately that i annoy you. not mutual, fwiw.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

i have no interest in rating more people (with cognisant it's kind of a beef because he projects this "science motherfuckers, no bias, i'm a cyborg, determinism bro" persona and then apparently subscribes to free will superstition in disguise). but your rating would be high. why do you seem offended? getting the vibe lately that i annoy you. not mutual, fwiw.

No, I didn't understand your post, hence the question. The rest was my assumptions that you were trying to say Cog is unable to understand something. Which is a common theme across this forum it would seem.

I'm not offended, I hope I didn't offend you with my stupid question/post, it's just that the wording of your posts sometimes makes it difficult to discern what you mean, I have this problem with Animekitty to a greater extent.

 

[Brontosaurie]

No, I didn't understand your post, hence the question. The rest was my assumptions that you were trying to say Cog is unable to understand something. Which is a common theme across this forum it would seem.

I'm not offended, I hope I didn't offend you with my stupid question/post, it's just that the wording of your posts sometimes makes it difficult to discern what you mean, I have this problem with Animekitty to a greater extent.

alright! i hope you understand now it was no stupid question

 

[Black Rose]

I'm not offended, I hope I didn't offend you with my stupid question/post, it's just that the wording of your posts sometimes makes it difficult to discern what you mean, I have this problem with Animekitty to a greater extent.

we need to interact more
so i can explain better

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

we need to interact more
so i can explain better

We do. I'm not giving up on you man. You know I'm going to reply someday.