The Many Worlds Theory and Immortality

JDude13
Messages
95
Reaction score
0
Forgive me if I have not grasped the ideas and intricacies of the Many Worlds theory. If I don't quite understand it all it's probably because I'm 16. :bugeye:
My theory goes like this:

According to the many worlds theory, every time a sentient being observes the outcome of the a particle in superposition the superposition breaks down and the universe splits into as many universes as there are outcomes in the probability of each result of the superposition.

Every being's conciousness is duplicated and distributed throughout the resulting universes (naturally).

When a person dies, I believe that, from the perspective of the victim, their conciousness will only end up in a universe where they can observe that universe. Therefore, when there is an outcome where someone has a chance of dieing, they will only observe a universe in which their particle configuration enables them to survive.

The implication: From every person's point of view, they are immortal and invincible. You may observe other's deaths but not your own.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is not quantum mechanics, this is not correct, and this is not appropriate for PF. Please reread the PF Rules, particularly those on overly speculative posts.
 
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top