Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebell
What if immortality consists of experiencing every universe?
That is, after you die in one universe, your conscience is shifted to the next that you exist in?
If in general you live your life well, this would indeed be heaven on earth. Likewise if you live your life poorly, you would have hell on earth.
|
While QM immortality says that could and will happen to one future Lebell, most of the future Lebells will have a far more prosaic existance.
There will be a future in which you die. There will be a future in which you are alive in 1 million years. Most of the futures in which you are alive in 1 million years will be because of relatively normal reasons that make sense at the time, not mystical mumbo-jumbo chance.
Quote:
Quote:
Note that you won't be alive with anyone else: all your family and friends etc will die almost certainly.
|
Is false, if it's extremely unlikely that you'll live forever, it's also extremely unlikely that only you, and your loved ones will too (only more so) Many Worlds would suggest that in some universe, you, and all your friends and family will live happily ever after, for ever, with a lifetime supply of magic beans.
|
Yes, that will happen. But it will happen with low probability.
Let "F" be friends and family live forever.
Let "K" be you live forever.
P(K|K) = 1
P(F|K) =~ 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by zen_tom
Much of what has been said here, could serve as evidence suggesting that the many-worlds theory is in fact false.
I just don't hold with the idea that a new universe is created every time something random occurs. It's a hugely over engineered way for the universe to behave.
Many worlds smells of people trying very desparately to hold on to the 4 properties of the universe that many people wish were real.
|
There are other hints besides the 4 properties you listed.
While I've seen papers that seek to explains these things without use of many-worlds.
First of all, mathematically, to describe the probability that an electron will go from point A to point B, you integrate it's probabilities over
all paths. In general, this is how you work things out in Q-M -- you pretend everything happens. This, for some odd reason, tells you what you will observe.
Secondly, there is no experiment you can do that can prove your own mortality to yourself. There is an experiment you can do to prove your own immortality.
Btw, hidden variables are insufficient to explain observations, and neither is indeterminism.
As far as I'm aware, you need a magic "quantum wave collapse"
and "faster than light communication of zero-information quantum wave collapse syncronization" in order to avoid having to use many-universes.
Or, we can assume a naive interpritation of what the math says we are doing is actually happening, and examine the consequences.
Quantum Computing
Where is the Q-M quantum computation happening? We are building a 'many-universe' computer, transmitting information between the universes, then arranging it so the universe in which the correct answer is worked out has a probability near 1.
The Double-Slit Experiment
How is that electron interfearing with itself? The electron-instances that go along each path push and pull against each other.
Schrodinger's Cat
Until we open the box, both the living and dead cat universes are not perpendicular. Opening the box makes us see only one of the two universes, the other one no longer visible, because it was rotated nearly 90 degrees away from us.
Schrodinger's Kittens
You make two Schodinger's cats in an entangled state: if one is dead, the other is alive.
You carry them, box closed, 1,000 light years apart.
Open one box. If it is alive, when you see the light from the other cat's box being opened, the other cat will be dead. And vice versa.
Many universes interpriation: opening the box causes you to be unable to see the universe in which the other cat is inconsistent with your local perceptions.
Many-universes makes Q-M things make intuative sense on macroscopic levels. It makes sense on mathematical levels. It is consistent with all observations.
I find locality violation philosophically abhorant than just making the universe a bit more broad. M-U is an interpritation that is consistent with observations, simple in explaination, explains the things that are difficult to explain, and beautiful in body -- that is why I think it may just be true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillyPete
eg: If a 'new' universe were to exist each time I was faced with a yes/no decision, then there'd be too many such 'verses to be supported by the limited amount of matter.
|
Hmm -- so, you think the 'stuff' gets too thin on the ground.
This is because you see the universe as dividing up into threads. It is far more continuous than that.
Imagine things casting shadows, but the shadow being the thing -- lights moving in many colours, on an infinite dimensional tapestry. Sheets of reality twisting and turning so they are at nearly (but not quite) right angles to one another, with their shadows on each other becoming indistinguishable from random noise.
It is a bigger reality, both more complex and more elegant than the clumsy "magical wave collapse" and "secret particle information subway" realities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillyPete
To my understanding it's more of a concept that while my conscious decided to cross the road I simultaneously exists as walking further before crossing. ie: I'm pretty much everywhere at once at any given moment.
|
Who are you? Those that are elsewhere are images of you, things that what you used to be did become.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBen931
You guys have given me something to think about. On my death bed, many years from now (I hope) I will look at my loved ones gathered around and say cheerfully "No big deal, there are millions of alternate universes where I am still alive and well. Onward and Upward!"
|
This is where I find some interesting implications.
You will be sick in bed. And you'll recover, no matter how ill you will get. Those around you will see you die, yes, but you will see yourself recover.
It becomes your duty to reconcile them with your death, with no longer being able to see you, while you yourself are facing no such risk of loss.
Desease and Death are sad, because they hurt others with your absence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zen_tom
It looks to me as though there is a pattern of breaking down these common sense assumptions we make about the universe, and that imaginative attempts at preserving them (while entertaining) are unlikely to provide any real description of the underlying structure of the universe. (Just my humble opinion)
|
The alternative explainations are worse than the wierdness you get from the many-universe theory.
You think that the math is just an illusion. But, for whatever reason, math has proven to be the best modeler of the universe we have yet found. I'm taking the math at face value, and it says this universe is but a slice of reality.