/sci/ - Science & Math

Quantum immortality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality

If you don't know anything about quantum physics, then refrain from retarded shitposting. Read up on the topic and see how idiotic your post was.

>>5475471
Your idea is not science. Your idea is metaphysical nonsense.

Philophers talk abotu bullshit like you do, not scienists. Philophers don't require evidence or proff to believe in random bullshit they made up. Science requires actual proof and shit.

It maybe neat to think about this nonsense, but don't confuse it for science WHATSOFUCKING EVER!

>>5475477
>>5475481
I wasn't aware of this, thanks

>>5475476
This is what real shitposting is. Not helpful at all to be honest, along with the unwarranted name-calling.
Was it too hard to post a constructive comment? If you think that my idea is not a good one, that's ok: either post constructive criticism or don't post at all. Even a link would do.

>>5475496

philosophers are scientist tho . dont shit on your ancestors

>>5475496

You should also read what philosophy is about too because they are seldom talking about the "world view". Most famous philosopher never go that deep with their theory on "world view".

Your imagination of philosophy is wrong.

On topic: Yes, I had the same silly ideas like you before but I don't think your post has anything to do with quantum physics.

>>5475496

also science is defined with philosophy

>>5475504
You are posting retarded teenager wannabe pseudo-philosophy. Have you ever thought about reading at least an introductory quantum physics book before spouting underaged ignorance and polluting this place with cretinous drivel? No, obviously you prefer to shitpost. You are what's wrong with this board.

>>5475508
It would seem (to me) that the 'Many Worlds' interpretation could allow for this to happen. Again, this is based on my fairly limited understanding, but it's not like I know NOTHING about it. I was just wondering if there was something that said it isn't possible.

I have looked at a few pages about 'Quantum Immortality' and it seems that they all hinge on the 'death is a long process' part, and that it is not binary.
I am not convinced by this argument because, while death is a process, You are either alive or dead, not both, so death is sort of binary. Maybe in this universe I will stay alive forever, but it will get to a point where I am almost dead, and will stay that way forever.

There's also arguments about sleeping, unconsciousness etc. but after sleeping or being unconscious, if you do not die you always regain consciousness, so this does not seem to be an issue.

I am starting to see how this may not be a strictly scientific problem, I guess the 'Quantum Physics' part just drew me in.

>>5475526
This is in no way scientific.

>>5475526
Go back to >>>/x/

>>5475517
Again, refer to my previous comment. All you seem to be doing is insulting me without giving any solid reasons why my argument is invalid. e

Unless you are willing to post a real argument against my idea, stop posting.

>>5475532
You didn't post any argument. Your post is a stream of unscientific nonsense. Untestable pseudo-philosophy babble without basis in reality. Please learn what science is.

>>5475537

>>5475471
>This one would be assumed by my consciousness
so you believe that you have some sort of soul that hops around from world to word as you die? or being that does so? What? that just makes no sense on any level.

>>5475537
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

>>5475526
All the bullshit you talk about has NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE.

NOTHING

\thread

>>5475541
In science a thought experiment requires a scientific theory whose implications are explored in said thought experiment. OP didn't post any theory. The uneducated ramblings of a teenager are not a scientific thought experiment. Take your edgy philosophy troll shit to >>>/x/

GUYS OBVIOUSLY HIS POST WASN'T VERY SCIENTIFIC HE POSTED IT TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY SCIENCE THAT WOULD DEBUNK IT.

If you don't like a thread just ignore it. Seriously.

While we're on the subject of quantum of immortality and seeing how this thread has already gone to shit, allow me to ask a question:

If quantum immortality is right - IF -, would that imply that I will eventually be the only living being on this planet?

not only is this not science, but it's not even philosophy. OP might as well be posting about the existence of angels.

>if there's multiple worlds, then angels are just idealized versions of ourselves, looking on from another world...
etc

>>5475608

Please respond

>>5475558

The scientific method started off as an empirical philosophy. Proper methods must be THOUGHT OF before they can be implemented. I'm really tired of any kind-hearted question on this board being dismissed as "herp derp go to /x/".

You ever considered that he knows /x/ is full of people who believe in paranormal phenomenon. You ever considered that he would prefer to consult /sci/ over /x/?

You consider yourself empirical and intelligent, yet you inherit the knee-jerk reaction of so many others on this board, who would redirect a person with a question to a source that lacks credibility because you don't personally like the phrasing of their question.

This makes you the dick, not OP.

The possibility of multiple universes is a genuine possibility,

What are decent online tables for identifying a substance if I have measured/calculated some of its properties?

More specifically, I calculated the viscosity and the density of the substance from some experimental results.

Is there any way I can find out what substance it is?

>>5475638
Science requires objectively verifiable evidence and testable hypotheses. Untestable and baseless fantasies are not science. Period. Go to school.

>>5475622

Philosophy is so broad and nebulous a category of academia, that simply saying something isn't philosophy, or saying philosophy is useless and retarded, or even saying that science should be used to accumulate knowledge instead of philosophy, ARE ALL EXERCISES IN PHILOSOPHY.

Even talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is philosophy. Cavemen arguing about their origins around campfires is philosophy.

Simply ignoring it as a genuine force which has shaped human ideas is just as immature as using it to perpetuate misinformation. Come now.

How many times to I have to regurgitate these simple facts before /sci/ learns that science is merely part of a whole.

You need construction workers to build a lab, you needed philosophers to COME UP WITH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN THE FIRST PLACE, after recognizing its superiority as a means of gathering information. You need mothers and fathers to raise scientists and feed them and clothe them and change their fucking diapers.

Christ some of you kids are perpetually stuck on stupid. You'd rather feel like you chose the "right" major then consider that humanity is a TEAM sport.

>>5475653
Consider the following:
This board is for science and maths, not philosophy.

>>5475648


I know about verifiable evidence and testable hypotheses.

My point is that people don't wake up one day with this knowledge, they learn it over the course of many years.

Ridiculing everyone who doesn't already have such knowledge with "go back to /x/ faggot" is a recipe for ALIENATING THEM from science, not bringing them to it.

Moreover, I've had data entry jobs and I've watched people let their personalities get in the way of their objectivity. I've been in the real world long enough to see that while science is theoretically sound, it is almost never put into practice the way it should be, because very fallible HUMANS are performing it.

This is why experiments are accompanied by margins of error.

Also, one generation's "unverifiable" is another generation's "verifiable."

Look up lists of theories which were ridiculed by MOST scientists when they were first postulated.

Evolution, plate tectonics, continental drift, a whole plethora of microscopic phenomenon....

Read a little into the history of science.

Also, just because we aren't able to verify the existence of multiple universes save through theoretical physics which makes too many intuitive leaps to be considered "objective" doesn't mean that we one day won't. In much the similar fashion that it was difficult to calculate the orbits of the planets before we had telescopes, it might be difficult to determine the boundaries or lack thereof of our universe from this "mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam."

If you want to know how wishy washy the world truly can be, look up the defintions of the very words you use to argue.

Then look up their etymologies, their synonyms, their various contexual uses...

You might find that even you spout bullshit without knowing what it means. I argued in much a similar fashion to you not maybe three years ago.

>>5475658

Consider the following:

Categories bleed into each other, and effect each other, and even define each other.

Consider the following:

I find "category police" such as yourself to be a hindrance to groundbreaking discussion. Because groundbreaking discussion involves the conversational intermingling of categories which are normally isolated.

For example: Knowledge of physics or biology might inform a breakthrough in medicine which may have not occurred prior due to the tendency of specialists and hardasses to never think of anything outside of their specialty, or hard ass.

>>5475653
>Even talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is philosophy.
Forming arguments as to the physical limits of nonphysical beings is, sort of, philosophy. It's not very good philosophy, but sure. Saying something like

>maybe the head of a pin is so small and sharp that it pierces into another dimension and forms the perfect place for angels to dance on

is just nonsense.

>>5475722

Absolutely it's nonsense.

And if I had gone to scientific authorities of europe in 1600, and contended that the stars were suns and that there were probably millions of planets in the universe, I would've been killed. This happened to Giordano Bruno.

If I had met up with scientists before Leewunhoek (sorry if I spelled it wrong) and contended that we were not actually individuals, but instead collectives of colonies of specialized microorganisms which perform various functions which, on the whole, leads to a sentient creature which recognizes itself with various conventions such as name, location, etc.

I would've been murdered.

Hell, pythagorus murdered one of his students for proving the existence of irrational numbers, which bothered him deeply.

Now, don't take this to mean that I am saying that one day, with the right technology, we will find dimensions with angels dancing. I'm just saying that if we do, and it's objectively true, we'll have to accept it regardless of how ridiculous or inconvenient.

Just like plate tectonics, the atomic world, the microscopic world, the subatomic world, deep space, deep time, and all these other fascinating things which didn't originally fit into our picture of the universe so easily.

>>5475817

It's Leeuwenhoek

So close buddy

>>5475693
Ex
>Theres photon entanglement in our DNA

Really, like DAFUQ