Does Quantum Immortality really mean we are immortal?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter TheQuestionGuy14
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mean Quantum
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of Quantum Immortality, particularly as illustrated by the quantum suicide thought experiment. Participants assert that the Many-Worlds interpretation suggests consciousness shifts to a surviving universe, while the Copenhagen interpretation does not support this notion. However, the argument is made that Quantum Immortality is experimentally falsified due to the reality of unconsciousness experienced by individuals. The consensus is that without credible references, the discussion lacks scientific validity.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics
  • Familiarity with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics
  • Basic knowledge of consciousness and unconsciousness in relation to quantum theories
  • Awareness of the quantum suicide thought experiment
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics
  • Study the Copenhagen interpretation and its implications
  • Examine the quantum suicide thought experiment in detail
  • Explore peer-reviewed papers on consciousness and quantum theories
USEFUL FOR

Philosophers, physicists, and anyone interested in the intersection of quantum mechanics and consciousness theories will benefit from this discussion.

TheQuestionGuy14
Messages
158
Reaction score
8
So the quantum suicide experiment says that if there is a 50-50 chance of you dying, let's say by a gun shot to the face (like Schrödinger's cat). You die in one universe, but survive in the other. Let's say the gun shoots and you die, does your conciousness shift to the one where you are alive, so you keep living? Or, do you just stay dead if you are in the universe where you die?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
TheQuestionGuy14 said:
So the quantum suicide experiment says that if there is a 50-50 chance of you dying, let's say by a gun shot to the face (like Schrödinger's cat). You die in one universe, but survive in the other

The quantum suicide thought experiment is just an experiment. The outcome depends on the interpretation. The outcome you mention is the one given by the Many - Worlds interpretation i.e. for each possible outcome of any given action, the universe splits to accommodate each one. In Copenhagen interpretation for instance the experiment does not work.
 
Quantum immortality is predicated on the assumption that you will never be unconscious because as long as one of your copies is conscious, you will be that copy.

I have been unconscious before, and so have you. In fact, we do it just about every night. Therefore, quantum immortality is experimentally falsified.
 
LeandroMdO said:
Quantum immortality is predicated on the assumption that you will never be unconscious because as long as one of your copies is conscious, you will be that copy.

I have been unconscious before, and so have you. In fact, we do it just about every night. Therefore, quantum immortality is experimentally falsified.

So it is falsifiable to some degree?

Even if it could happen, would the death have to be a quantum death (caused by a quantum particle, like the thought experiment) or by any death (car accident, drowning, disease etc.)
 
Last edited:
TheQuestionGuy14 said:
So the quantum suicide experiment says that if there is a 50-50 chance of you dying, let's say by a gun shot to the face (like Schrödinger's cat). You die in one universe, but survive in the other. Let's say the gun shoots and you die, does your conciousness shift to the one where you are alive, so you keep living? Or, do you just stay dead if you are in the universe where you die?

In my opinion, this is not physics.
 
LeandroMdO said:
Quantum immortality is predicated on the assumption that you will never be unconscious because as long as one of your copies is conscious, you will be that copy.

This statement would need references to back it up; no acceptable sources have appeared in this thread. (If you happen to have an acceptable reference--textbook or peer-reviewed paper--please PM me since this thread is being closed.)

PeroK said:
In my opinion, this is not physics.

Agreed. At best, discussion of this topic would need to be based on a specific acceptable source--a textbook or peer-reviewed paper. Even then, it's not clear that there is much that can be usefully said.

Thread closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
9K
  • · Replies 143 ·
5
Replies
143
Views
11K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
6K