/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12514064
Because we have no proof of it.

why would everybody be subjectively immortal? your death is a protracted process not very quantum in nature

>>12514072

Of course we have no proof MWI is real.

However, if MWI were real (which it isn't), that would basically necessitate that there would be universes where your dog is president. An infinite number of universes, in fact.

MWI would also necessitate that there are infinitely many universes where you live infinitely. This would basically make you subjectively immortal, since you can't perceive any universe where you're dead.

>>12514084
I suppose so, there was a horse that was a consul.

>>12514081

How isn't death a quantum process? Basically everything is a quantum process.

Therefore, if MWI were true (which it isn't), that would mean there would have to be infinitely many universes where you end up as a 50,000 year old who's probably rotting alive and ruing your existence.

>>12514097
>How isn't death a quantum process? Basically everything is a quantum process.
because once the process of death begins it's generally at the point where no probabilistic tomfoolery would save you or at least keep you in any state of awareness
you would definitely lose consciousness, some of your cells would fail before the others so you may still be "alive", there's no real definitive point where you would collapse into two states of "alive" or "dead"

>>12514116

Death has a pretty definitive point. Doctors have machines that give signals at the exact moment a person dies.

Anyway, under MWI, there would have to be infinitely many universes where you're both alive and conscious.

>>12514064
Because anyone who believes such a retarded theory is obviously too retarded to see the implications of it.

>>12514195
>Doctors have machines that give signals at the exact moment a person dies.
Lmao no

>>12514203
Uh, yeah? It detects soul energy.

Many Worlds is the only interpretation that explains quantum mechanics. To the people complaining about the sheer number of worlds being created, the Copenhagen also creates worlds that disappear almost instantaneously.

>>12514064
>Namely that there would be infinitely many universes where your dog is president?
Low IQ take

>>12514195
>Anyway, under MWI, there would have to be infinitely many universes where you're both alive and conscious.
yeah but if you get blasted in the head by a shotgun, you're probably not jumping universes to where you're alive and conscious

I have work tomorrow

>>12514064
>>12514081
>>12514097
>>12514417
If there are infinite universes, then you don't exist in an infinite number of universes. So you are not immortal and likely don't exist at all.

And infinitely many universes that exist without the many worlds interpretation

>>12514064
One universe for every real number. As God intended.

>>12514493
>subset of universes where you exist has zero measure
>your existence is literally inconsequential
damn

>>12514064
Many worlds is just a joke. It's supposed to be funny.

>>12514504
earth is 6000 years old nigga space aint real

>>12514597

>>12514064
In an infinite number between 1 and 2, there are no 3 or 0. Just because MWI says theres almost an infinite number of worlds, does not mean there are worlds where your dog is a president.

>>12514326

Does Copenhagen mandate that you’ll be alive at age 10,000,000 like MWI does?

>>12514417

You could just end up in a universe where the shotgun blast fails to kill you and you end up losing your face, are ugly beyond words, are probably brain damaged, but are still alive. Look up Katie Stubblefield.

>>12515202
Yes.

>>12515225

How?

>>12514920
>What if MWI is infinity like the real numbers or whatever the largest infinity is.

>>12515228
Can it happen under Copenhagen or can it not? If yes, then you've answered your own question.

>>12514064

Like a previous poster stated, do you really think that proponents of an idea as stupid as MWI really give much thought to its seeming implications?

>>12515233
Cope. Physicists realize Many Worlds is the only interpretation that can explain quantum experiments.

>>12514597
If it helps you sleep at night, bud.

>>12515231

Copenhagen doesn’t mandate that events with a probability lower than 1/(10^Graham’s number) have to happen like MWI does.

>>12514064
The MWI interpretation has just as many problems as Copenhagen does. The most obviously being that probability isn't conserved on each branch so the wavefunction is no longer normalized

>>12515251
But it can happen.

People who reject Many Worlds remind me of geocentrists.

>>12514084
>This would basically make you subjectively immortal, since you can't perceive any universe where you're dead.
that assumes that consciousness transcends the universe and that you and your copy in another universe have the same consciousness
so it doesn't really follow from MWI unless you assume this (which is definitely a very debatable claim)

>>12514064
Because that's not how it works.

>>12515207
No, not even then because there is still a period between having your brain come apart where you and your cells are "alive" but you are inevitably going to die and you definitely cannot return to consciousness

>>12514064
Because they have no proof, and they certainly don't want to spend several millions in portal technology just to be proven wrong.

>>12514084
Why would it imply universes where the dog is president ? Infinity doesn't mean everything is possible. You have infinite numbers between 0 and 1 but you can't have 2.5

>>12516223
The question is, which type of infinity is MWI? What if its the largest infinity that covers everything.

>>12515274
many worlds rests on the presupposition that the laws of physics as we observe them in our universe would be true in all universes. that the laws of physics have some sort of transcendental power. it is an immensely retarded take both in physics and in philosophy

>>12515239
>Physicists realize Many Worlds is the only interpretation that can explain quantum experiments.
Said no one ever

>>12514064
>Namely that there would be infinitely many universes where your dog is president?
No, it wont. Because multiverses dont mean that everything is possible. For example there would be no earth were water consist of fire. Because in an universe were fire is like water, no earth would happen to form. It would mean a different physics leads to a different universe.

>>12514417
>>12515207
guys, is simpler than that. there is non-zero probability for large scale objects to tunnel, essentially disappear. this is what quantum sciences tell. therefore there is a chance that some electrons/atoms of that bullet will disappear, as there is a chance that all of the atoms constituting the bullet will disappear at the same time. in an infinite universe, there are with absolute certainty worlds where whatever is interacting with you and lowering your lifespan magically disappeares, like solar rays, cell mutations, tumors, bullets, poisons etc.

there are infinite universes where you live a million years, then something will interact with you and you die. there are infinite universes where you live only 500 years and then something kills you. there are infinite universes where you are still dodging that bullet, cosmic ray, tumor, mutation, etc. to this day, and will continue forever. there are infinite universes where every human on earth lives forever. there are infinite universes where only dogs live forever. there are infinite universes where you, after a million years, decide to kill yourself, but the knife you are holding will disappear. there are infinite universes where you take another knife to get the job done, and you manage to kill yourself, but also infinite universes where even the second knife disappear from your hand, and so does the third, and the fourth, and so on. there are infinite universes where your hand disappeares.

there are infinite universes where whatever chemical reaction causes you to feel pain will go on forever, because everything interacting with this chemical pain will disappear. quantum pain immortality. welcome to hell.

>>12518721
There is no reason to believe the universe is finite and very good reason to believe otherwise.

>>12514417
all that means that there won't be a you that remembers getting blasted by a shotgun. but if you consider a future you still you even if he won't remember your current experience (and you do, you're not afraid of "dying" every time you forget something that happened to you), and there's a surviving future you in some branch which shares the vast majority of your experiences, just not the killed by shotgun thing, you do in fact survive.

>>12518721
MWI may very well mean finite branching universes. A very large number, but not infinite

If so, the % of universes where you're immortal would be extremely tiny compared to the rest

Also, in those universes, you would almost certainly know you're immortal. All these universes still obey the same laws of physics and shared history. It's not like it can do magic such as randomly making everyone God or something. Everything still happens "normally"

>>12514493
>If there are infinite universes, then you don't exist in an infinite number of universes
why

>>12518793
other 'yous' existing in the abstract doesn't really change that your subjective experience can follow a path where death is inevitable, even if other 'yous' exist elsewhere. your subjective experience won't experience them just as it doesn't experience them now.

>>12521122
There's no strict sense in which an experience is *yours*. Strictly speaking there's just states of experiences with varying degrees of connectivity. But if we assume that there's a branch which diverges into one where you get shot and one where you don't, and before that event they were the same exact branch, you will experience the surviving branch. Since there's no such thing as experiencing being dead. The experiences in the surviving branch are yours, in the sense that they share the vast majority of your memories. Which is the same sense in which you are roughly the same person as you were yesterday.

>>12516223
Infinity is better when viewed as array of potentiality.

>>12521212

Who says you couldn't follow the path where you get shot by the shotgun, survive, and end up living with half a face for all of eternity?

Heck, over an infinite timeline, wouldn't it be inevitable that you'd experience every awful and permanently disabling and/or disfiguring event possible? Whether it's getting shot by a shotgun, losing a leg to a train, losing your other leg to a person who saws it off just to be mean, losing your arms in a bomb explosion, etc.?