How do you build a quantum suicide machine?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the concept of a "quantum suicide machine" and its relation to multiverse theory and quantum immortality. Participants clarify that building such a machine is unnecessary, as the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics suggests that there are worlds where one survives and others where one does not. Key points include the illegitimacy of linking consciousness to quantum mechanics and the assertion that quantum immortality is a flawed concept. The conversation emphasizes that the MWI does not provide a definitive framework for experiencing immortality, as survival is probabilistic rather than guaranteed.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles, particularly the many-worlds interpretation (MWI).
  • Familiarity with Schrödinger's cat thought experiment.
  • Knowledge of quantum Zeno effect and its implications.
  • Basic grasp of particle physics and the role of particle accelerators.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
  • Study the quantum Zeno effect and its relevance to quantum mechanics.
  • Explore Schrödinger's cat thought experiment in detail.
  • Investigate the philosophical implications of consciousness in quantum mechanics.
USEFUL FOR

Quantum physicists, philosophy of science enthusiasts, and anyone interested in the implications of quantum mechanics and multiverse theories.

  • #31
durant35 said:
wouldn't the possibility that you implied kinda be inconsistent with anthtropic reasoning - that we are in this branch because we are likely to be in it

Not at all. Anthropic reasoning says we are in this branch because we, as sentient observers, have to be in a branch that can contain sentient observers. But it says nothing at all about how likely such branches are compared with branches that cannot contain sentient observers; it just says that, of course, we won't find ourselves in one of the latter branches.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
PeterDonis said:
Not at all. Anthropic reasoning says we are in this branch because we, as sentient observers, have to be in a branch that can contain sentient observers. But it says nothing at all about how likely such branches are compared with branches that cannot contain sentient observers; it just says that, of course, we won't find ourselves in one of the latter branches.

You're right. Maybe this is too much digression for the thread, but I've read numerous arguments about typicality of our universe in a "multiverse". Translated to the MWI language that should mean that a right cosmologicak theory would put us (hypotethically of course) in a typical branch. Though I agree with your premise, it seems that this should be prioritized.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K