A Conversation for Proving The Existence of Parallel Universes (with the Added Bonus of Immortality)
Fragilis - h2g2 Cured My Tabular Obsession Started conversation Oct 5, 2004
The flaw in this theory, in my opinion, is the idea that a single person/particle/whatever can somehow exist in infinite universes. It would be far more correct to say that infinite non-interchangeable versions of that person/particle/whatever exist, one in each of a potentially (but not necessarily) infinite number of universes. Therefore, running this experiment is simply 99.9% likely to kill you as a unique individual among all potential universes.
There's absolutely no reason to believe through any mathematical logic whatsoever that you will 'change universes' to be in the one where a version of you survived. Even in a case where 1000 versions of you run this experiment, it's not safe to assume that the lucky survivor will be identical to you in all other ways besides their having survived when you didn't. That person, including whatever differences with you they have, will live on. You won't. It's as simple as that.
Similarly, it's rudely disingeneous to say that the 99.9% of the population of the versions of you running the experiment (almost certainly including you) who will die won't be aware of their death. The same is true of any instantaneous death, but this is hardly lauded as a mitigating factor in that person's deadness, now is it?
We can be certain that your family, friends, and any coordinators in your experiment will take care of the awareness of your death in your absence. And I doubt they will find taking up that task for you very pleasant at all. You will have succeeded primarily in burdening others with a lengthy grieving process through your ill-fated attempt to thwart the inevitability of death through flawed logic.
Perhaps I'm taking this entirely too seriously. But I've been a geek long enough to see how this theory might appeal to someone as, if nothing else, 'an intelligent way to go.'
No, it would not be. It would be a very stupid way to go. Don't bother.
Fragilis - h2g2 Cured My Tabular Obsession Posted Oct 5, 2004
Sorry, one last stab.
If there were no such thing as infinite universes, it would still be possible to run this experiment and come out alive. It would be unlikely to work to your favor, but unlikely and impossible are hardly the same things. Scientific truth required a preponderance of evidence, which this experiment is unable to provide. It merely provides an anecdotal story hinging on a rare mathematical coincidence.
So even if you were to run this experiment and live, you wouldn't exactly be heralded as a genuis by the scientific community. You would, rather, be viewed as a dangerous and possibly suicidal nutcase.
The author of the theory is able to pass over a very low ethical bar only because he, himself, has no intentions of running the experiment. Perhaps that should say something about the theory.
If the universe is infinite, then im "a" center, 21+4^1+8+9=42 Posted Oct 7, 2004
i must say, very good arugment. i prob wont be able to change your mind on the matter, the point u raised about always being in the universe where you live is one thing im still not sure about.i know that someones told me that you survive because the unverse where you survive is the only one that you are able to expiernce because in the other you are dead. the reason you are able to move into it without making everthing seem weird and ruining everthing is that it was made because of the quantum dicision, u can focus on just the 2 universes, the orignal and new one, or the one where it decayed, and one where it didnt. and everytime the process is re done it creates a new universes each with these 2 situations. You are not going into an already existing universe, that would make everthing really weird, since conditions would be differnt, as far as i know you cannot jump into another universe, and the only time that things can swap is at the beggining of the creation of universe since all the conditions are exactly the same except for the differnce of the quantume dicision
hope that made some sence..and that it might enlighten you, i honestly dont have a 100% confident answer for you, i know you call yourself a geek, not sure how much you know about quantum physics and parallel unvirse, but for me its the most interesting thing ive ever read about, so i try and learn as much as possible about it
Fragilis - h2g2 Cured My Tabular Obsession Posted Oct 7, 2004
What you're saying makes sense to me. But it still sounds more like wishful thinking than serious scientific inquiry.
There's really no reason to believe that quantum physics spawns universes, nor that any other probability event does so. If you argue long and hard enough at it, I suppose you can convince yourself that it's possible. But if you don't start out with that outcome in mind, Occam's razor implies that either those multiple universes were present before the probability event occurred or else some other, even less complicated mechanism explains the behavior of superimposed electrons. Otherwise, trillions of universes are create every second of the day.
You know, this whole theory is nothing but an updated version of Schrodinger's cat. The only difference is that the experimenter makes himself the test subject, thereby forfeiting all pretence of being an unbiased observer. Everything else is window dressing based on a relatively new science most people don't understand.
Quantum physicists warn against applying their discoveries about the behavior of molecules to larger phenomena. They argue that any applications to human beings, societies, or even small objects should be discovered from the ground up through the processes whereby quantum experts apply what we know about molecules so far. Starting from the top down with a particular goal in mind - particularly a sweeping, grandiose goal like uncovering multiple universes and realizing immortality - is a great way to get things horribly, horribly wrong.
It's not dissimilar to early geneticists' warnings that their initial observations should not be used to justify racial prejudice. Despite their warnings, sideline observers created all sorts of grandiose theories about racial traits. Of course, the actual geneticists were quite right. The eugenicists of the last century were openly shamed, and some blame them in part for genocides like the Holocaust.
If the universe is infinite, then im "a" center, 21+4^1+8+9=42 Posted Oct 8, 2004
I read the Schrodinger's cat experiment again last night after i made the reply to you, and it does make me agree with you in a lot of aspects, i would say that wishful thinking would apply more to the two experiments that try to apply quantum physics to larger parts of life. I do believe in the theory to a quantum level because of such things as the double slit experiment (although it seems that it might be in jeperdy) and quantum computing and encription. Though these are still not proven, they are a lot more believable and more chance that that are actually correct unless Schrodinger's cat and the experiment described.
I agree with that we should not start on such large scale, espially since all that has been done has been using the theory that applies to particles and made just replicated it on a large scale to work on a large scale. One thing that is on a upside of this experiment is that its a lot more practicle to understand, i konw that experiments like this and Schrodinger's cat have helped me to get a better grasp of the whole theory even if the particular experiments i was learning from where incorrect, they still give insight into what happens on the small level.
Baryonic Being - save GuideML out of a word-processor: A7720562 Posted Oct 29, 2004
Sorry I took so long to reply (I wasn't subscribed to this edited version of the entry).
Take a look at the Peer Review thread (if you want): F1791694?thread=409164. Many people raised similar issues.
One main thing to remember is this: it's nothing to do with me. I'm not a physicist, but Max Tegmark is, and I'm merely writing about what he has proposed, and trying to make it sound as exciting and interesting as possible.
Additionally, we are all making assumptions here. Your interpretation of the many worlds theory differs greatly from Max Tegmark's interpretation (obviously so). Tegmark must have thought that there is one 'you' and that we can experience one universe at a time - any other version of 'us' are not actually us.
Your own interpretation(s) are equally valid, however, where there are an infinite number of versions of each of us, and the fact that an infinite subset of those will survive and infinite (but larger) subset will be dead, is nothing to the fact that it is more likely that the person doing the experiment will die.
These interpretations, and the interpretation that is the many worlds theory itself, are merely interpretations, and we currently have no proof for or against any of them.
Occam's razor does not necessarily rule out multiple universes. Many physicists might argue that the alternative explanation of quantum mechanics (the Copenhagen interpretation) is too messy and inexplicable (precisely why should particles only work out where they are when observed?) The many worlds theory attempts to provide a very real and physical explanation of quantum mechanical ideas.
Basically - we just don't know.
Hello again to you, ...center..., glad to see you back again.
Key: Complain about this post
- 1: Fragilis - h2g2 Cured My Tabular Obsession (Oct 5, 2004)
- 2: Fragilis - h2g2 Cured My Tabular Obsession (Oct 5, 2004)
- 3: If the universe is infinite, then im "a" center, 21+4^1+8+9=42 (Oct 7, 2004)
- 4: Fragilis - h2g2 Cured My Tabular Obsession (Oct 7, 2004)
- 5: If the universe is infinite, then im "a" center, 21+4^1+8+9=42 (Oct 8, 2004)
- 6: Baryonic Being - save GuideML out of a word-processor: A7720562 (Oct 29, 2004)