/sci/ - Science & Math

Someone please explain the science to him so he knows its not real.

>>10014257
Are the people in this thread serious? Like not joking? This is really fucking stupid.. and creepy.

>>10014265
The dude just recorded himself doing it. I think they're taking it too seriously.

>>10014257
quantum suicide is a stupid implication of the copenhagen interpretation, which i provide my arguments against here

>>10010217

unfortunately that thread is replete with dumbasses who know nothing about physics and instead go on with their philosophy circle-jerk

>>10014257
We already learned how to receive immortality 1984 years ago.

>>10014257
...can we get him to livestream?

>>10014279
thats fucked up

理智設定自我的總和

>>10014265
you must be new to /x/

>>10014269
Can you try explaining that post you made more basic so the brainlets at /x/ can understand it and dont try committing sodoku? They need to know the multiverse theory doesn't imply immortality

>>10014292
They’re on /x/, just let darwinism take the course it’s meant to.

>>10014292
sure. first let's distinguish classical from quantum things

let's assume the gun is fully classical -- no quantum effects influence whether it fired. then you die, supposing the bullet or gun has no obvious mechanical or chemical defects

now the other case: suppose the gun requires some quantum mechanical event to really fire -- like e.g. there is some radioactive process going on in the gunpowder which will determine whether it fires or not

the many histories interpretation (which i reiterate is the consensus opinion among professional high-energy physicists) would say that whether the gun fires or not is determined pretty much right at the time the gunpowder ignites or not. that's when the universal wavefunction splits. NOT when you die from the bullet firing or not.

the observer is not "causing" anything to happen in the modern interpretations of quantum mechanics; otherwise it would imply that quantum mechanics has some non-unitary "collapse" of the wavefunction

OTOH if you believe that the universal wavefunction undergoes branchings just at the same time that these random events (the radioactive process that determines whether your gun fires or not) occur, then the universe doesn't care what a particular observer might or might not observe

>>10014267
why do people do this shit on 4chan. the other week someone killed their stepmom with an ax and tried to post the pictures on. was in the news.

>>10014302
thanks, just posted it there

>>10014302
You should really write an article on this or something to save more lives. Someone on reddit killed themselves because they believed in quantum immortality too. His username and posts are posted in the /x/ thread but you can find it pretty easily on google. Too many people are going to believe quantum immortality is a real thing as it gets more popular.

>>10014310
might have been better to reformulate it in /x/-tier language; i don't think those guys have any real conceptual understanding of e.g. hilbert spaces, schrodinger evolution, and eigenstates...

not that many people do though, but if you do understand those things a little, then you can understand this stuff in a much more concrete way

>>10014304
Only NPC's would engage in this so theres no net loss.

>>10014302
>the many histories interpretation
Do you mean Gell-mann's consistent histories or many worlds, cause those are two different things. Also by Gell-mann's own admission Copenhagen is correct, and consistent histories may be thought of as Copenhagen + decoherence, though you may already be aware of that. In any case, QI is bullshit.

>>10014320
Whay are you doing in my BASED existence?

>>10014317
this is all really interesting. where can I learn more about this?

my point stands though, more people will try killing themselves because of this theory, word needs to get out that it isnt a real thing.

>>10014321
maybe it's my own interpretation, since i always read Gell-Mann as being almost 100% antithetical to copenhagen. my interpretation follows Gell-Mann in that we have some coarse-graining to our macroscopic view of the state of the universe, and that corresponds to some "bundle" of possible histories, which branch apart from one another _at the time of the occurrence of the quantum phenomenon causing the branching_.


i don't really want to argue about the history of who thought of what in terms of quantum interpretations, but the "quantum branchings come from quantum phenomena, not people" interpretation is what i might call it if it were new and not already embodied already in e.g. The Quark And The Jaguar

>>10014317
Why do these people believe that their consciousness transfers over to the new universe?

Does quantum mechanics say anything about that? I believe someone said you can't experience anything without your consciousness so thats why they believe you continue in a new universe where you live

>>10014343
I want to know this too. I get the idea of believing two universes will have different outcomes in a 50/50 scenario. But where did the belief come from that they will die in their universe then get transferred over to a new one where they continue living?

>>10014338
well the real place to learn about QM is in QM textbooks, hate to break it to you. Griffiths is a good QM textbook.

if you're not at that level, then i already mentioned Gell-Mann's book in this thread, which has like one or two chapters on QM. for a better understanding of QM, it's dangerous -- most popular science books on QM are total shit. one of the ones i read when i was like middle-school age was In Search of Schrodinger's Cat by John Gribbin, but honestly i can't remember it well enough to say whether it has BS in it or not

>>10014343
because of the stupid Copenhagen interpretation. it accords with the formalism of QM, but it misses a significant chunk of common sense. QM is a theory of how the universe works, and formulating it in terms of particular measurements that observers _freely choose_ to make, and that those freely chosen measurements make a difference on the physical universe, is pretty retarded. it's almost a contradiction, but not quite. anyhow, anyone with common sense, or maybe a little physics background to crystallize that common sense, should realize that any description of nature should not depend crucially on particular subjective choices made by other people. otherwise the whole thing comes tumbling down. even in a purely mathematical sense -- non-unitary quantum mechanics (as implied by the copenhagen interpretation) has major problems with information theory and QFT in curved spacetime

What the fuck the guy actually posted a video of him attempting to shoot himself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAVfvWZM4Ho

>>10014354
So in your opinion does the universe actually split into two separate universes in a 50/50 event? Or an entirely new universe is created with the opposite outcome of the event? Or is it all bullshit?

>>10014361
HOLY SHIT. There was a round in the chamber and he pulled the trigger.

>>10014257
Fuck off faggot. There's unironically nothing wrong with committing suicide.

>>10014340
>since i always read Gell-Mann as being almost 100% antithetical to copenhagen
Eh, not really, I think Sidney Coleman's "Quantum mechanics in your face" says it best,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtyNMlXN-sw
The way I always interpreted the results (which in fairness could be totally wrong but so far has seemed convincing to me) is that the wave function itself is "subjective", and the collapse of the wave function is just a complex generalization of Bayesian inference. This makes quantum mechanics dependent on observers you might say. Well...yes and no. Observers=/=consciousness per se. Observers are just those things that can make observations, i.e. apply an observable to a system and measure some value, and thus are able to determine some property of the system. The reason you never see the quantum behavior when you make a measurement is because you entangle the wave function of the measurement apparatus and yourself with the system you're measuring. If you interpret things the way Everett did then you get many worlds. But if you imagine the wave function to be the observer's state of knowledge then there's really no observed separate reality. This realization comes under the name decoherence and is what Gell-Mann seems to be saying, at least to me. At this point I've kind of been describing four "different" interpretations, Copenhagen, consistent histories, Qbism, and Von Neumann - Wigner, but to my knowledge depending on how you define things these interpretations are basically the same thing. If you define the ability to make observations as a precondition for consciousness then you get that Copenhagen and Von Neumann - Wigner are basically the same. Qbism and Copenhagen seem manifestly the same, though it seems David Mermin doesn't believe that's the case, his arguments don't seem too convincing to me.

>>10014340
>>10014407
As for the relation between Copenhagen and consistent histories, Gell-Mann talks about propositions which in the language of Hilbert spaces are projection operators. But those projection operators are observables, and by definition observers are the ones applying observables to a system. And this is kind of how consistent histories starts forming from Copenhagen. As for Copenhagen being non-unitary, well, prior to making an observation the theory is indeed unitary, but the projection postulate says that once a measurement is made then it's no longer unitary since projections aren't unitary. But this is still necessary to explain the Born rule, which is needed to make predictions in quantum mechanics. And this shows up in consistent histories too, it's not just "splitting when a quantum process occurs" because if that were the case, then how would there be a difference in the double slit experiment when it's being observed and when it's not being observed. That's where the projections come in, and those projections are indeed observables. I think the real issue with all this is just the use of the work "observer". But maybe I'm completely wrong.
>>10014354
>non-unitary quantum mechanics (as implied by the copenhagen interpretation) has major problems with information theory and QFT in curved spacetime
Again, not really since QFT still has observables. I do think the hang up is considering observers to be people, rather than people (with equipment) being a subset of observers. I mean, how else are you proposing we derive the Born rule?

>>10014292
It's simple. In THIS universe (ie "reality") you will die ane your conciousness wiped out. It is impossible for your memories to be transfered elsewhere. You just die.

>>10014372
not the same guy,
while the universe "splits", there's no need to add anything new, it was all there from the start
this article explains it really well I think:
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/30/why-the-many-worlds-formulation-of-quantum-mechanics-is-probably-correct/

>>10014349
>>10014354

There is literally nothing wrong or weird about the copenhagen interpretation. The problem is that people misunderstand the extreme hyperboles (including the cat thing) which was nothing more than a form of 20th century trolling (like how today we would deride ML as nothing more than layer stacking).

The entire point of copenhagen was that QM _doesn't_ lead to multiverse bullshit, when you pass through statistical mechanics back to the classical realm you recover the classical laws; 100% (s.t. measurement error) bullet gets fired and you die right then and there.

It's the same thing with Maxwell's demon etc. It is basically trolling gone too far.

Please don't post anything containing the word demon on /x/ though.

It's real it's just unlikely

>>10014511
I can't believe people on the /sci/ board are saying this.

>>10014546
It's consistent with our understanding of physics , doesn't violate fundamental laws

>>10014361
Omfg call the police these kids are fucking crazy

>>10014257
Why in the world would I try to stop a stupid person from killing himself?

>>10014257
Only an NPC would try this. So no net loss.

>>10014282
Sadly wouldn't be the first Anon around here to do just that.

Heck, it was a monthly occurrence on /b/ for a bit, back in the day.

>hey my conciousness goes to another dimension where I didn't pull the trigger
What happens to the consciousness that lived in that dimension then?
Do you overwrite him or remove him from existence?
No that would be stupid.
Theory debunked.
Where's the proof that your memories will follow you to another dimension?
Even if another dimension does activate, your physical body is dead and that includes your memories. You die when you pull the trigger.
What about all the people who die here and don't come back to life? Basically according to this nobody would ever die. But they still do.

>>10014257
Natural selection always finds a way.

It seems pretty clear to me.
This drives cosmic expansion. Dark matter is the collective disgust of the universe.

>>10014378
Or brass, or a snap cap, or a round without a primer or powder.
It's some genius trying to get /x/philes to kill themselves.

>>10014551
Your conciousness transferring to parallel universes every time you die thereby making you immortal is consistent with our understanding physics and doesn't violate any fundamental laws? Yeah okay bud.

>>10014659
you should probably post that in their thread before one of them commits soduku

>>10014955
This is literally the exact thought I had. I think it was just brass alone for the purpose of fucking with people.

>>10014361
i have no words

>>10014257
But it's very real. The only problem is that from my perspective the larpanon would most certainly blow his brainlet out.

>>10014302
This anon literally has no idea what he talks about.
>let's assume the gun is fully classical -- no quantum effects influence whether it fired
Yes, they literally do.

>>10015214
Reality is consistent with the many worlds interpretation

>>10015439
And QI is consistent with Many Worlds Interpretation, yet most outright dismiss it, only capable of using straw man arguments. I suppose all of them must be smarter than Everett. Or perhaps not.

>>10015489
>>10015439
>>10015412
Ok geniuses, explain what happens when you die then.

>>10015512
You become dead

>>10015489
Everett never once mentioned quantum immortality.

>>10015514
Are you one of the people I replied to? Because the idiots I replied to are saying you wake up in a new universe when you die.

I can’t believe there’s brainlets on /sci/ RIGHT NOW that are fronting quantum immortality as a real thing. It’s literally just a thought experiment.

Pic related, it’s people who believe in quantum immortality.

>>10015489
>>10015439
Many Worlds interpretation can not imply “quantum immortality”
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.0187.pdf

>>10015512
>>10015523
Since you're not even aware of what the thought experiment proposes, why would I bother answering? Not interested in hearing your straw man arguments such as
>saying you wake up in a new universe when you die.
>>10015519
Obviously he didn't. The scientific community was already mocking and bullying him for MWI. They'd consider him crazy if he as much as mentioned QI.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Everett_III
>At the age of 51, Everett, who believed in quantum immortality,[5][18]
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#cite_note-85
>Also Everett was reported to believe "his many-worlds theory guaranteed him immortality".[85]
>>10015532
It literally doesn't matter if it's real or not, because it can't be objectively proven.

>>10015542
>calls other posters arguments straw man
>uses a straw man argument himself

>>10015537
Read this a long time ago. The author of the pdf does not even comprehend what he is arguing against. It's only a thought experiment and not a real hypothesis because it cannot be proven or otherwise. To claim that one has "debunked" a thought experiment takes a real brainlet.
>>10015548
Where?

>>10015523
Nobody said that ,in every way you can die there's a nonzero chance of you not dying due to what we call qm. You shoot yourself in the head and the bullet may tunnel to the other side of the room for example.

You may come arbitrarily close to dying an infinite amount of times and that's what we call quantum immortality ,even what you said that you nearly die and then wake up fine all the time is possible.

Our modern understanding of mechanics says this sort of thing is unlikely to happen.

>>10015552
>the author of the pdf does not even comprehend what he is arguing against

That’s the 2nd ad hominem you’ve used in this thread, your other one was saying an anon has no idea what he’s talking about. Instead of explaining why you believe QI is a real thing without just sayin “because many worlds imply it”, you just insult anyone that’s explaining in detail why they don’t believe it’s true.

>>10015558
Don’t put too much thought into the guy you’re responding too. People like him are common on this board.

>>10015558
So is it ad hominem or straw man? Make up your mind (protip: it's neither). I don't have the will and motivation (and perhaps the articulation skills) to thoroughly describe a thought experiment that has already been described many times, nor dissect a 16 page long pdf that is grounded on a false premise.
>why you believe QI is a real thing
See, another straw man. I never said it's a real thing, nor I'd ever be willing to claim such. It's not objectively provable either way, thus completely pointless to debate. My sole claim is that QI is consistent with MWI.

>>10015586
>>10015586
I wasn’t the same person that called you a straw man you retard. I said you used an ad hominem twice which you did.

>I never said it’s a real thing
What you definitely said is that a gun has quantum effects influence it. Which is so wrong that I’m assuming you’re a freshman in college at best taking his first physics class. You’re literally responding to everyone who says QI is fake and when you get called out you say “oh its just a thought experiment I don’t have to explain why it’s fake because it’s not real”. You’re the definition of a retard.

>QI is consistent with MWI
No it’s not.

>>10015586
Pic related it’s you

I think the first thing a Quantum Suicide Operator would want is to not have to put up with childish arguments thrown around on a Primordial Soup Kitchen For The Homeless.

Which one of you fucks is shitting up that thread with your “worldline” nonsense? I know its one of you, the way it’s presented is too articulate for an /x/ dweller.

>>10015947
Thats what I thought too. Maybe its YOU!

>>10015950
To add to this. Its really really really messed up to be the vulnerable people on /x/ that they can kill themselves and be fine.

>>10015954
*to tell the vulnerable people on /x/

>>10015950
Its not, but you may aswell think its me. We are all Anonymous anyway.

New thread >>>/x/21472718

>>10014257
Just explain wave function collapse

>>10015489
There's another famous quote. It goes "if you think you understand quantum mechanics then you don't understand quantum mechanics." You do think you're smarter than Feynman do you anon?

>>10014283
?