Notices
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: The question of quantum immortality

  1. #1 The question of quantum immortality 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    36
    Is there any refutation of quantum immortality?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Anffaeledig View Post
    Is there any refutation of quantum immortality?
    According to my understanding, the relational interpretation of QM avoids the absurdities of this. The wave function for an observer inside the box is different from that for an observer outside.

    But I am not an expert on this.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Anffaeledig View Post
    Is there any refutation of quantum immortality?
    According to my understanding, the relational interpretation of QM avoids the absurdities of this. The wave function for an observer inside the box is different from that for an observer outside.

    But I am not an expert on this.

    Am I interpreting quantum immortality correctly?

    Quantum immortality assumes that if I am an observer (consciousness), then I will be immortal and will be able to experience all possible states of life on myself. Roughly speaking, trying to shoot myself in the head, some other accident will play and I will not die, but perhaps I will become an invalid with a functioning consciousness.


    But if we take other people as a separate consciousness and as observers, then why do they die?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,689
    My understanding of quantum immortality is that if you happen to be Schrodinger's cat, then because the dead cat part of the quantum superposition can't know it's dead, then only the live cat part of the quantum superposition can be aware of its own state. And because this state is always alive, it perceives itself to be immortal.

    I don't think it works if your action 100% definitely kills you.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    ox
    ox is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,783
    Doesn't the cat paradox suggest that you could live on in a parallel world?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,669
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    My understanding of quantum immortality is that if you happen to be Schrodinger's cat, then because the dead cat part of the quantum superposition can't know it's dead, then only the live cat part of the quantum superposition can be aware of its own state. And because this state is always alive, it perceives itself to be immortal.

    I don't think it works if your action 100% definitely kills you.
    But isn't that just a long way of saying you can't know you're dead? Or am I being thick?

    I'm reading Carlo Rovelli's "Helgoland" at the moment, which seems to me to deal with Schrödinger's Cat very well. According to him, if you are the cat, there is no superposition. His thesis seems to be that the form of the wave function is dependent on the point of view of the entity interacting with the system, in rather the same sort of way as measurements of space and time are observer-dependent in relativity. But I haven't finished the book.....

    By the way, in case you or other readers (if any!) don't know this joke already:-

    Heisenberg and Schrödinger are in a car, Heisenberg driving. A traffic cop pulls them over for speeding. He says to Heisenberg, "Have you any idea how fast you were going?". Heisenberg replies, "No idea, Officer. But I do know exactly where we are." Traffic cop says, "Right, let's have a look at this car then", and starts walking round it. When he gets to the boot he opens it and says, "Do you realise you've got a dead cat in here?". Schrödinger replies, "Well we do now."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    4,915
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    My understanding of quantum immortality is that if you happen to be Schrodinger's cat, then because the dead cat part of the quantum superposition can't know it's dead, then only the live cat part of the quantum superposition can be aware of its own state. And because this state is always alive, it perceives itself to be immortal.

    I don't think it works if your action 100% definitely kills you.
    But isn't that just a long way of saying you can't know you're dead? Or am I being thick?

    I'm reading Carlo Rovelli's "Helgoland" at the moment, which seems to me to deal with Schrödinger's Cat very well. According to him, if you are the cat, there is no superposition. His thesis seems to be that the form of the wave function is dependent on the point of view of the entity interacting with the system, in rather the same sort of way as measurements of space and time are observer-dependent in relativity. But I haven't finished the book.....

    By the way, in case you or other readers (if any!) don't know this joke already:-

    Heisenberg and Schrödinger are in a car, Heisenberg driving. A traffic cop pulls them over for speeding. He says to Heisenberg, "Have you any idea how fast you were going?". Heisenberg replies, "No idea, Officer. But I do know exactly where we are." Traffic cop says, "Right, let's have a look at this car then", and starts walking round it. When he gets to the boot he opens it and says, "Do you realise you've got a dead cat in here?". Schrödinger replies, "Well we do now."
    Is that a bit like any joke.You don't get it at first and then it suddenly comes fully formed but you don't know how you got it?

    In fact ,if you analyse it the joke disappears.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Anffaeledig View Post
    Is there any refutation of quantum immortality?
    Is there any real rational argument to support it?
    Here's one take:
    So hard-core fans of quantum immortality say that we’re all destined to experience eventually becoming the oldest person on earth — outliving our friends and family, and eventually even the human species and planet Earth as a whole.
    Note that, as stated here, the "principle" applies to everyone. And yet we clearly have people dying...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,669
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    My understanding of quantum immortality is that if you happen to be Schrodinger's cat, then because the dead cat part of the quantum superposition can't know it's dead, then only the live cat part of the quantum superposition can be aware of its own state. And because this state is always alive, it perceives itself to be immortal.

    I don't think it works if your action 100% definitely kills you.
    But isn't that just a long way of saying you can't know you're dead? Or am I being thick?

    I'm reading Carlo Rovelli's "Helgoland" at the moment, which seems to me to deal with Schrödinger's Cat very well. According to him, if you are the cat, there is no superposition. His thesis seems to be that the form of the wave function is dependent on the point of view of the entity interacting with the system, in rather the same sort of way as measurements of space and time are observer-dependent in relativity. But I haven't finished the book.....

    By the way, in case you or other readers (if any!) don't know this joke already:-

    Heisenberg and Schrödinger are in a car, Heisenberg driving. A traffic cop pulls them over for speeding. He says to Heisenberg, "Have you any idea how fast you were going?". Heisenberg replies, "No idea, Officer. But I do know exactly where we are." Traffic cop says, "Right, let's have a look at this car then", and starts walking round it. When he gets to the boot he opens it and says, "Do you realise you've got a dead cat in here?". Schrödinger replies, "Well we do now."
    Is that a bit like any joke.You don't get it at first and then it suddenly comes fully formed but you don't know how you got it?

    In fact ,if you analyse it the joke disappears.
    That's wave function collapse for you, I guess.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Anffaeledig View Post
    Is there any refutation of quantum immortality?
    Is there any real rational argument to support it?
    Here's one take:
    So hard-core fans of quantum immortality say that we’re all destined to experience eventually becoming the oldest person on earth — outliving our friends and family, and eventually even the human species and planet Earth as a whole.
    Note that, as stated here, the "principle" applies to everyone. And yet we clearly have people dying...
    In addition, I am sure that in most cases people who have believed in quantum immortality will not take full responsibility for their actions in front of other people, believing that they will not die completely and all these actions can lead to negative consequences for other people.


    And they will consider other people to be observable for themselves only objects, although from a material point of view, other people are not particularly different from them and in my opinion are the same observers as you are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Anffaeledig View Post
    Is there any refutation of quantum immortality?
    Is there any real rational argument to support it?
    Here's one take:
    So hard-core fans of quantum immortality say that we’re all destined to experience eventually becoming the oldest person on earth — outliving our friends and family, and eventually even the human species and planet Earth as a whole.
    Note that, as stated here, the "principle" applies to everyone. And yet we clearly have people dying...

    It is also interesting the following, if we take other people as observers (after all, in fact, from a material point of view, they are not particularly different from me), then why do they die?


    On the one hand, you can find the answer, since these people will be observable for me (the observer).


    But here's another problem, that if quantum immortality is actually bullshit, but people believe in this immortality and they may completely lack responsibility for their actions because of this idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Anffaeledig View Post


    It is also interesting the following, if we take other people as observers (after all, in fact, from a material point of view, they are not particularly different from me), then why do they die?


    On the one hand, you can find the answer, since these people will be observable for me (the observer).


    But here's another problem, that if quantum immortality is actually bullshit, but people believe in this immortality and they may completely lack responsibility for their actions because of this idea.
    However, (i) hardly anyone has even heard of quantum immortality and (ii), out of those who have, only a handful of batshit crazy people would take it seriously.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    36
    [QUOTE = exchemist; 632409] [QUOTE = Anffaeledig; 632408]


    It is also interesting the following, if we take other people as observers (after all, in fact, from a material point of view, they are not particularly different from me), then why do they die?


    On the one hand, you can find the answer, since these people will be observable for me (the observer).


    But here's another problem, that if quantum immortality is actually bullshit, but people believe in this immortality and they may completely lack responsibility for their actions because of this idea.[/ QUOTE]

    just assumed.

    There are people who still believe in God and that for all their actions, the will of God.

    Then why not assume that there are people who can seriously think about the quantum of immortality.

    Sorry for my english, i'm russian man.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    ox
    ox is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,783
    I think Tegmark (ref #8) might be a bit of an attention seeker.
    For instance, he thinks consciousness is a form of matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Anffaeledig View Post
    [QUOTE = exchemist; 632409] [QUOTE = Anffaeledig; 632408]


    It is also interesting the following, if we take other people as observers (after all, in fact, from a material point of view, they are not particularly different from me), then why do they die?


    On the one hand, you can find the answer, since these people will be observable for me (the observer).


    But here's another problem, that if quantum immortality is actually bullshit, but people believe in this immortality and they may completely lack responsibility for their actions because of this idea.[/ QUOTE]

    just assumed.

    There are people who still believe in God and that for all their actions, the will of God.

    Then why not assume that there are people who can seriously think about the quantum of immortality.

    Sorry for my english, i'm russian man.
    Because practically nobody has heard of quantum immortality. I had to look up what it was and I have a degree in physical science. It is highly obscure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,689
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    My understanding of quantum immortality is that if you happen to be Schrodinger's cat, then because the dead cat part of the quantum superposition can't know it's dead, then only the live cat part of the quantum superposition can be aware of its own state. And because this state is always alive, it perceives itself to be immortal.

    I don't think it works if your action 100% definitely kills you.
    But isn't that just a long way of saying you can't know you're dead?
    I think a key aspect is that it is the one cat (multiple worlds but with an identical history) that leads to both the dead cat part of the quantum superposition and the live cat part of the quantum superposition, with only the live cat part of the quantum superposition being the perceived outcome for the cat. However, it seems to me that the perception of the cat isn't that it survived the poison, but that the mechanism failed to produce the poison, and always fails to produce the poison if the experiment is repeated many times.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Anffaeledig View Post
    It is also interesting the following, if we take other people as observers (after all, in fact, from a material point of view, they are not particularly different from me), then why do they die?
    In the Schrodinger cat experiment, external observers can observe a dead cat, but the immortal cat doesn't exist in the world of these observers. The immortal cat only exists in the world of the observers who observe a live cat.

    EDIT: In the Schrodinger cat experiment, external observers can observe a dead cat, but these observers do not exist in the world of the immortal cat. Only the observers who observe a live cat are in the world of the immortal cat.
    Last edited by KJW; May 22nd, 2021 at 04:54 PM. Reason: Alternative viewpoint
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Anffaeledig View Post
    It is also interesting the following, if we take other people as observers (after all, in fact, from a material point of view, they are not particularly different from me), then why do they die?
    In the Schrodinger cat experiment, external observers can observe a dead cat, but the immortal cat doesn't exist in the world of these observers. The immortal cat only exists in the world of the observers who observe a live cat.

    EDIT: In the Schrodinger cat experiment, external observers can observe a dead cat, but these observers do not exist in the world of the immortal cat. Only the observers who observe a live cat are in the world of the immortal cat.
    How to check the immortality of a cat, when you watch a live cat?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,669
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    My understanding of quantum immortality is that if you happen to be Schrodinger's cat, then because the dead cat part of the quantum superposition can't know it's dead, then only the live cat part of the quantum superposition can be aware of its own state. And because this state is always alive, it perceives itself to be immortal.

    I don't think it works if your action 100% definitely kills you.
    But isn't that just a long way of saying you can't know you're dead?
    I think a key aspect is that it is the one cat (multiple worlds but with an identical history) that leads to both the dead cat part of the quantum superposition and the live cat part of the quantum superposition, with only the live cat part of the quantum superposition being the perceived outcome for the cat. However, it seems to me that the perception of the cat isn't that it survived the poison, but that the mechanism failed to produce the poison, and always fails to produce the poison if the experiment is repeated many times.
    That must be right. Which is equivalent to saying that from the cat's perspective the radioisotope never decays, since it is that (implicitly random) event that triggers the release of the poison. Which is a nonsense, since the half life of the radioisotope is not observer-dependent.

    So that seems to prove the idea must be wrong, doesn't it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,689
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    the half life of the radioisotope is not observer-dependent
    Actually, it is observer-dependent due to the quantum Zeno effect. But I don't think the quantum Zeno effect is relevant to Schrodinger's immortal cat.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,669
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    the half life of the radioisotope is not observer-dependent
    Actually, it is observer-dependent due to the quantum Zeno effect. But I don't think the quantum Zeno effect is relevant to Schrodinger's immortal cat.
    But isn't that interaction-dependent, rather than observer-dependent?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. most probable quantum immortality
    By Quantum immortal in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 17th, 2014, 03:33 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 19th, 2012, 02:55 AM
  3. Physical Immortality or Spiritual Immortality - why do we have to choose?
    By kojax in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 1st, 2012, 08:27 PM
  4. Question about quantum physics?
    By eric0728 in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 5th, 2010, 09:56 PM
  5. quantum question
    By mamibrkly in forum Physics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 10th, 2008, 05:00 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •