Quantum Suicide and Immortality - General

[QUOTE=David29;16516395]I read something simmilar to this once which involved a cat in a closed box. Inside the box is a vial of poisonous gas. In a seperate compartment is a peice of lightly radioactive material and a geiger counter. A hammer is set up to fall and hit the vial (breaking it open and thus killing the cat) if the geiger counter goes above a certain reading (which is not always guaranteed). The result of this is that at any given time, the cat is both dead and alive as no one can say which it is until the box is opened. Once the box is opened,the universe then splits into two; one where the cat lives and one where the cat dies.[/QUOTE] Shoedringers box or something.

[QUOTE=cyclocius;16558348]Shoedringers box or something.[/QUOTE] In search of Schrodinger's Cat

[QUOTE=Chevron;16558333]You would never see it from my understanding it is the observation that triggers the course, or did i miss the point "in search of Schrodinger's Cat"[/QUOTE] Well i'll just quote a bit of wikipedia: "The purpose of the thought experiment is to illustrate this apparent paradox. Our intuition says that no observer can be in a mixture of states; yet the cat, it seems from the thought experiment, can be such a mixture. Is the cat required to be an observer, or does its existence in a single well-defined classical state require another external observer? " Anyway I explained my last post badly, its just not worth it, i'm tired already :p

Fair enough, I should read that book again though, its only 8:50 here yay Australia

Surely the man would die of old age instead of becoming immortal. Or am I missing the point?

[QUOTE=lmaoboat;16553587]So what you're saying is everyone who doesn't agree is wrong? The entire theory is built on that the difference between a dead human and a live human has any relevance to the universe. What is so special about a consciousness mind that would allow it to persist through alternate realities? There's little difference between being shot in the head and dying or being shot and almost dying. And why would realities even split at all? Even if the state of a quantum particle is completely random, the device will still end up reading a one result. The only way another universe could have different results is if it had different initial conditions of it's creation, and even then it any changes would have to later the results of the gun firing without changing the world enough to stop it from being fired all together.[/QUOTE] How many times do I have to repeat that this has[b] nothing to do with consiousness[/b]. Consiousness if totaly irrellevent. By 'observe' we simply mean two quantum particles interacting. And im not saying that everyone that dissagrees is wrong, just that the probability of this being correct is much more then it being incorrect, as its backed up by QM; the most successful theory ever made. Read this entire thread before posting people.

God exists... when not observed.

[QUOTE=pistolero!;16558731]God exists... when not observed.[/QUOTE] That would depend on if the concept of 'god' would violate the laws of physics. If it didn’t, then it could exist OBSERVED in an alternate reality, perhaps even in this one (very small chance). Though I’m pretty sure most people’s idea of god DOES violate the laws of physics, and so would never happen. Unless were talking about it existing outside of the universe, then it wouldn’t have to exist by physical laws. However, no evidence has ever been found for there being a god, so anymore discussion on the matter is pure conjecture.

[QUOTE=Kade;16559013]That would depend on if the concept of 'god' would violate the laws of physics. If it didn’t, then it could exist OBSERVED in an alternate reality, perhaps even in this one (very small chance). Though I’m pretty sure most people’s idea of god DOES violate the laws of physics, and so would never happen. Unless were talking about it existing outside of the universe, then it wouldn’t have to exist by physical laws. However, no evidence has ever been found for there being a god, so anymore discussion on the matter is pure conjecture.[/QUOTE] No evidence has been found for god. None for this idea. None for the existance of other universes(Until you give me hard evidence, I won't accept it)

[QUOTE=SeRo-;16559692]No evidence has been found for god. None for this idea. None for the existance of other universes(Until you give me hard evidence, I won't accept it)[/QUOTE] The whole theory of Quantum Mechanics is the evidence for this theory. Transistors and electron microscopes both use Quantum Tunnelling. The double-slit experiment proved that Q particles can exist in more than one state at any one time. QM has been rigorously tested over the past century, and has passed with flying colours to become the most successful theory ever created by man. Quantum Suicide is a repercussion of QM. That’s evidence enough for me. And if someone says [i]'its only a theory'[/i] - yes, yes it is only a theory. Pretty much everything is only a theory. The only things which aren’t are Axioms - such as the 'I think therefore I am'. But its a theory which scientists are 99.99999999999999 etc sure is accurate.

[QUOTE=Kade;16558696]How many times do I have to repeat that this has[b] nothing to do with consiousness[/b]. Consiousness if totaly irrellevent. By 'observe' we simply mean two quantum particles interacting. And im not saying that everyone that dissagrees is wrong, just that the probability of this being correct is much more then it being incorrect, as its backed up by QM; the most successful theory ever made. Read this entire thread before posting people.[/QUOTE] Just because something is "backed" by "the most successful theory ever" doesn't mean it's true. That's like coming up with a scenario in which fairies could exist due to evolution., and claiming that they must exist. And I have yet to see why the universe would even split at all? If you measure the spin of the particle at any given time, there is only one possible measurement, and it's what ever one you get, not both at once. And you say that this has nothing to do with consciousness, defeats the purpose of the immortality part of the theory.

[QUOTE=Denzo;16516498]:psyboom:[/QUOTE] :psyduck::psyboom: :psyduck::psyboom: :psyduck::psyboom: But seriously, this is what they're calling it? I think this is probably the coolest concept I've come across. Fun to recall it right after a near-miss in heavy traffic: "did I just die?"

[QUOTE=lmaoboat;16560049]Just because something is "backed" by "the most successful theory ever" doesn't mean it's true. That's like coming up with a scenario in which fairies could exist due to evolution., and claiming that they must exist. And I have yet to see why the universe would even split at all? If you measure the spin of the particle at any given time, there is only one possible measurement, and it's what ever one you get, not both at once.[/QUOTE] Right. I'm going to clear this up. If particles did NOT exist in more than one place/state at any one time, then when the double slit experiment is performed with [b]individual [/b]atoms, we would not get an interference pattern as seen below. [img]http://stephenwhitt.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/double-slit-electrons.jpg[/img] We wouldn't get this pattern as the particle would simply go through and build up in two neat piles on the other side, similar to grains of sand. However, this ISNT what happens. Instead we DO get a diffraction pattern, which means that the individual atom is travelling through BOTH slits at the same time and then interfering with itself on the other side - like waves (hence the wave function of probability) which then creates the diffraction pattern on the other side. This happens, and is undeniable. However, when we 'observe' - i.e. interact with the particle - to ascertain which slit it goes through, we collapse the wave function and the diffraction pattern ceases to happen - we instead get the two discrete piles of atoms. This shows that when particles are unobserved they DO exist in more than one state/position etc at the SAME time. Our reality is only defined by the state that the particles are in when we measure/observe them, but when they aren’t being interacted with they DO exist in more than one state, causing the diffraction pattern. Because of this, there has to be another reality where the particle went through the opposite slit to the one it went trough. This is what causes the 'universe splitting'. This has nothing to do with human consciousness - I cannot stress this enough. An observation can be ANY interactions with another quantum particle. [quote]Just because something is "backed" by "the most successful theory ever" doesn't mean it's true. That's like coming up with a scenario in which fairies could exist due to evolution., and claiming that they must exist.[/quote] If the 'fairies' were physically possible then they could potentially exist, but that would be very very improbable, as no evidence has ever been found for them. This theory on the other hand, HAS got evidence backing it up. And I didn’t say it was 'true', just that scientists are 99.999999 percent sure of it. Also jumping from evolution to creating mythical creatures is in no way similar to this. This theory has a solid theoretical framework which has been backed up by observable evidence time and time again. Fairies do not.

[QUOTE=lmaoboat;16560049]Just because something is "backed" by "the most successful theory ever" doesn't mean it's true. That's like coming up with a scenario in which fairies could exist due to evolution., and claiming that they must exist.[/QUOTE] Not really. QM predicts effects which have been observed in experiments. A theory is a conceptional foundation. As long as there are no evidece, it is called hypothesis: A simple idea. As soon as a hypothesis' predictions got observed, it becomes a theory. QM predicts so many stuff which has been observed. Without QM, there wouldn't be atomic clocks, we wouldn't understand atom-light-interactions and semiconductors also wouldn't exist how they are now. And many MANY much more. [QUOTE=lmaoboat;16560049]And I have yet to see why the universe would even split at all?[/QUOTE] Many-world-interpretation is an interpretation. It mustn't be real but it could. It was an attempt to describe the behavior of a quantum-particle. [QUOTE=lmaoboat;16560049]If you measure the spin of the particle at any given time, there is only one possible measurement, and it's what ever one you get, not both at once.[/QUOTE] Yes and no. You are thinking too classical. The spin of a e.g. a free electron is totally unclear. Think about an arrow which can point into any direction of 3D space. As long as you don't measure, the electron's spin is in a coherent superposition of all these possible directions. Now if you measure the spin (by turning on an external magnetical field for example), the spin will be measured as pointing to the north or south of this magnetic field. If you measure the spin of this electron right after you measured it first with a magnetic field in the same direction as the first field was, you will measure the [b]exact same spin direction[/b]. [U]This phenomenon is called the collapse of the wave function.[/U]. Here is an example: The particles spin-wave-function is, as said before, a coherent superposition of all possible spin-directions. This means, it is a sum of the wavefunction with spin-up and spin-down. [img]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?|\Psi > = |Up> + |Down>[/img] This is the state of the particle's spin before you measure. It is neither [img]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?|Up >[/img] nor [img]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?|Down>[/img], it is both at once. Now you measure. With a chance of 1/2 you get either [img]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?|Up >[/img] or [img]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?|Down >[/img]. After measuring it, you know exactly in which state it is and measuring it infinite times more gives the same result. You might now say "this is all mathematical bullshit" and the reason why physicist write it as a "sum of all possible states" is because "we don't know in which state it is". But there are actually experiments which clearly have shown that the particle really is in all spin-configurations at once, as long as you don't measure. (Done with e.g. interference effects where two or more particles - states of both particles not measured yet - have been brought to interference which showed that actually the complete sum of all states interfered, not only that part which got measured later) Many-world-interpreatation now simply interprets this effect of "we only know the state of a particle after measuring and before it is totally unclear" with the other chances the particle could be in a different state will become true in a different "universe": A parrallele world.

[QUOTE=lmaoboat;16560049]Just because something is "backed" by "the most successful theory ever" doesn't mean it's true. That's like coming up with a scenario in which fairies could exist due to evolution., and claiming that they must exist. And I have yet to see why the universe would even split at all? If you measure the spin of the particle at any given time, there is only one possible measurement, and it's what ever one you get, not both at once. And you say that this has nothing to do with consciousness, defeats the purpose of the immortality part of the theory.[/QUOTE] Except we have experiments that reinforced observations to an extremely high degree of accuracy. It's not at all like coming up with a scenario in which fairies could exist due to evolution, because that would be a very weak theory which could not be reinforced by any physical or experimental evidence.

[QUOTE=SeRo-;16559692]No evidence has been found for god. None for this idea. None for the existance of other universes(Until you give me hard evidence, I won't accept it)[/QUOTE] Give me hard evidence for gravity or I don't accept it. Have you seen Hitler? No? See he didn't exist. Give me hard evidence.

[QUOTE=The Saiko;16560899]Give me hard evidence for gravity or I don't accept it. Have you seen Hitler? No? See he didn't exist. Give me hard evidence.[/QUOTE] That's a little silly of an argument. Stuff gets pulled towards the earth, that's evidence of gravity. There are pictures and documentation of Hitler.

[quote]Just because something is "backed" by "the most successful theory ever" doesn't mean it's true. That's like coming up with a scenario in which fairies could exist due to evolution., and claiming that they must exist. [/quote] Your analogy doesn't really work. Whereas evolution of specific animals depends on environmental factors and other factors too numerous to count, if something is a corollary to the predictions of a verified theory it is probably true.

[QUOTE=Dclone2;16562017]That's a little silly of an argument. Stuff gets pulled towards the earth, that's evidence of gravity. There are pictures and documentation of Hitler.[/QUOTE] I think he meant it as a sarcastic way of saying that 'hard evidence' as such doesn’t always exist so we use a framework of theoretical evidence, which is just as good as it is based on ‘hard evidence’.

ITT: Quantum particles can split one universe into two, a universe where an expected occurrence happens and one where it does not. Thus creating a time paradox between two possible timelines I fucking love these kinds of threads. Also, yes, I wrote all of that right there with a complete understanding of the concept

[QUOTE=DrVivi;16547805]If you pull the trigger it makes 2 universes A and B. A your alive, B your dead. In universe B you cannot possibly pull the trigger as you are dead so that universe stops splitting while A continues which creates C and D. C and D are a continuation of universe A but C you are alive D you are dead. So you would live in universe C because C is the continuation of universe A. Sorry if this was hard to understand I suck at explaining stuff. So many letters haha.[/QUOTE] So A and B cease to exist when C and D are created?

[QUOTE=TurtlePower;16564073]So A and B cease to exist when C and D are created?[/QUOTE] I don’t think they would. Just because you die, ur particles still exist, as do everyone else’s, and they will continue to enter decoherence and split onwards and onwards. Doesn't matter that you personally cant consciously observe it. Also I doubt you really get to [i]'choose'[/i] which reality you are in. Odd's are you’ll probably be 'you' in the one where you die, while an alternate you live on. I don’t think consciousness can span realities. This whole idea wasn't supposed to be a way of becoming immortal in [i]this[/i] reality, but a way of proving that immortality is possible - just very [i]very very[/i] improbable that it will be in this reality.

[QUOTE=Kade;16564258]I don’t think they would. Just because you die, ur particles still exist, as do everyone else’s, and they will continue to enter decoherence and split onwards and onwards. Doesn't matter that you personally cant consciously observe it. Also I doubt you really get to [i]'choose'[/i] which reality you are in. Odd's are you’ll probably be 'you' in the one where you die, while an alternate you live on. I don’t think consciousness can span realities. This whole idea wasn't supposed to be a way of becoming immortal in [i]this[/i] reality, but a way of proving that immortality is possible - just very [i]very very[/i] improbable that it will be in this reality.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure the idea of QT is that -your- conscious remains alive. As in, you seem never to falter to death. While it appears to others you die, thus you are entering a new universe in which you see yourself to survive.

[QUOTE=Neolk;16564768]I'm pretty sure the idea of QT is that -your- conscious remains alive. As in, you seem never to falter to death. While it appears to others you die, thus you are entering a new universe in which you see yourself to survive.[/QUOTE] Yeah this is the point which things get hazy. Depends if the system by which your future reality is chosen is random or somehow dictated by the fact that you are conscious. I can understand the latter; as if you aren't conscious you obviously couldn’t perceive reality. But I’m not sure, kinda depends on how consciousness and the concept of [i]you[/i] are defined.

But eventually your body has to die of natural causes. So what happens to your conciousness then...

[QUOTE=TurtlePower;16566129]But eventually your body has to die of natural causes. So what happens to your conciousness then...[/QUOTE] You don't 'have' to die. There is no reason why you 'have' to die. It is entirely possible that you continue to exist, as you continue to SEE yourself exist and live in another universe.

[QUOTE=Neolk;16566162]You don't 'have' to die. There is no reason why you 'have' to die. It is entirely possible that you continue to exist, as you continue to SEE yourself exist and live in another universe.[/QUOTE] Yes but what I mean is all the alive copies of you will eventually die of natural causes.

[QUOTE=TurtlePower;16566197]Yes but what I mean is all the alive copies of you will eventually die of natural causes.[/QUOTE] They won't, because you exist in a universe, your conscious exists in a universe where he/she is immortal. Unable to die.

[QUOTE=TurtlePower;16566197]Yes but what I mean is all the alive copies of you will eventually die of natural causes.[/QUOTE] There will always be a (almost infinately small) probability that you would live another second, and another and so on and so on, forever. The probability would keep going down, but it would still be possible and - according to this interpretation of QM - does happen in some alternate realities.

[QUOTE=arimi;16516366]wow out with Newtonian theory and in with the quantum theory you guys are rating me dumb but trust me.through histroy the same shit has happened. new ideas start becoming the establishment and statue for a way of thinking and it changes so every hundreds of years and btw i said that comment sarcastically[/QUOTE] You fail because Newtonian mechanics and Quantum mechanics operate on two completely different levels, and both are correct at their respective levels. None is eliminating the other. You really should finish middle school before you post in a thread like this. Scratch that, high school.