Quantum Immortality is cool

This is a strange idea that requires a weird interpretation or view of Many World theory. First, quantum level effects must exist on the macro scale of our everyday lives. Second, every event that occurs must somehow have a ton of other ways it could have turned out, even if no decision-making was involved on our part. I think both of those claims are a bit odd even for Many Worlds, but hey let’s go with it.

The idea of quantum immortality is that every time you die, a parallel reality splits off in which you didn’t die. This happens because whatever killed you in this reality ends up taking a different causal path in the split reality, this is supposed to refer back to the cat in the box being both dead and alive at the same time… again, not sure if that is really a macro-scale phenomenon but hey. Maybe it is and we just don’t know it.

And that’s the cool idea about quantum immortality: even when we die, an identical version of ourselves splits off into another parallel reality a la Many Worlds theory, and ‘we’ go on living. ‘We’ never experience dying because when we die in this reality, our subjective self-consciousness no longer exists here, therefore we cannot be experiencing anything. But we still exist in the split reality. Let’s say you step out into the road for some reason and a car hits you, bam, you die. But in the split reality the car just barely misses you because of any number of countless possible things that happened just slightly differently to delay your stepping into the road by a second or two. All that needs to occur is one small difference based on a quantum fluctuation, and now you are alive. The car missed you.

So according to Many Worlds theory, both realities exist. But you are only aware of the one in which you are alive.

In this way, every time we die, we split off and keep existing. AND we are only ever aware of the realities in which we exist. Cool huh?

An interesting consequence of this idea is that we might never be able to die. Ever. Unless there were literally NO possible changes AT ALL, ANYWHERE in our reality that could have happened and caused our death to have been avoided. But that seems impossible, because there should always be some alternate reality in which something was different that caused us to keep living. Even if we get very very old and die of old age, at that moment there should be another reality in which life-extension technology already exists and you didn’t die. Or an alternate reality in which they had better medicine to keep you alive for longer. Or an alternate reality like Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect, in that story the AI becomes so powerful it merges with reality and keeps every human alive forever, if they somehow die it just recreates them again. Etc and etc, if you think about it there are almost endless possibilities for alternate realities that could split off leading to you still being alive, no matter how you ended up dying.

So how far does all that go into the future? Well, theoretically it should go forever. There should be parallel realities in which life extension or transhuman technologies already exist and people do not die anymore. Maybe that isn’t even that far off in our real world, or maybe it already exists for the very exclusively rich and powerful, who knows. In any case, the weirdest consequence of this idea is that you might never die. Ever. Or maybe at least until the literal universe itself dissolves in countless thousands of millions of billions of trillions of years from now or whenever that might actually occur… but even then, there are probably parallel universes where time travel exists so the ‘you’ facing universal annihilation can just go back in time and keep looping in time forever, therefore still achieving immortality.

1 Like

The problem with all those stances is that either

  • You cannot avoid to die
  • You cannot die
1 Like

Well, I’m afraid it’s a little more complicated than that.

According to the Many Worlds theory (MWI), there exists an incalculable (near infinite) number of worlds (parallel universes) in which (living) copies of you exist.

So, in light of that notion, make this…

“…But you are only aware of the one in which you are alive…”

…make sense.

In other words, you are allegedly alive in the trillions of other universes that have already branched off of this* one.

And the point is that unless you are very special, it is highly unlikely that you possess the same first-person awareness and perspective of your “aliveness” in those trillions of other branches as you do in this* universe?

*(Forgive me, PX, but the MWI is one of my pet peeves, and debunking it is one of my favorite pastimes. So, just as an amusing [yet plausible] sidenote to consider, according to the MWI, “this” universe - with its billions of galaxies [and the copy of you that created this OP] - may have just now come into existence a mere 10 minutes ago as the result of a branching from a quantum event that took place between the methane atoms in a stinking fart that was expelled by someone [or something] in a pre-existing parallel universe. I call it the “Tiny-Toot” Theory [as opposed to the “Big Bang” Theory].)

Anyway, if ^^^that^^^ plausible possibility of the origin of us and our universe isn’t ridiculous enough to ponder, then, again, if (as you suggested) you are only aware of the universe in which you are alive, then you need to explain what’s going on with the copy of you that is allegedly still alive in the universe that our universe was farted into existence from?

You need to explain how that parallel you is still “you” (still your same “I Am-ness”) and not a different and separate “I Am-ness” with its own autonomous identity?

You need to explain how if (God forbid) you were to die today in this universe, you would nevertheless be immortal because the doppelganger “you” in that parallel universe would still be alive?

1 Like

@ProfessorX

My favorite theoretical form of immortality is eternal return.

:clown_face:

1000018155

Woody Allen hated that theory because it meant he would have to sit through the Ice Capades again…

1 Like

@seeds

Now, that’s funny.

:clown_face:

Woody Allen is retarded, so anything he hates is probably worth glancing at.

In any case, …let me get to your proper response.

And yeah, ER at least under Nietzsche’s formulation of it, is indeed a bit.. silly.

2 Likes

Notice how in my OP I put ‘you’ in those little asterisk quote thingys. At least once or twice. I am not unaware of what you mention here. I am not claiming that a single universal “you” needs to be present across multiple timelines nor that there must be or could or ought to be any kind of singular or universal or spiritual or (what is it you are really attempting to argue against…?) “absolute you”. If a parallel universe splits off and there is now another “you” existing there, otherwise identical to the you here in this universe, I see no contradiction whatsoever. Why could there not be the you that is here, and another “you” (a totally separate being, yet with the exact or near-exact same material biological and metaphysical structure as you) somewhere else?

Certainly the thought experiment of cloning + perfect brain scan and brain replication would demonstrate this. If I could clone your body and brain with 100% perfection, and produce another “you” that has your same memories, inclinations, DNA, instincts, all of it… do you see any kind of contradiction there? I do not. But maybe I am misunderstanding your objection to the idea of quantum immortality?

I already hypothetically supposed that Many Worlds is the case, or could at least be the case in theory. Obviously this entire concept of quantum immortality depends on Many Worlds being true. I am not claiming to know that it is true. I am just talking about an interesting conclusion or consequence that would or could be the case IF Many Words in fact was true.

If you want to argue that Many Worlds Interpretation of QM is not true that is cool, and I would not be opposed to that. I’m pretty sure you haven’t actually done that yet, though.

They are different, or separate at least. I don’t see that as a problem.

“You need to explain how if (God forbid) you were to die today in this universe, you would nevertheless be immortal because the doppelganger “you” in that parallel universe would still be alive?”

I see the misunderstanding. You assume a need for some kind of God-like or universal Soul / absolute individual being / “I AM”-ness, a thing that transcends across timelines. I am not claiming any such thing exists or needs to exist for this idea of quantum immortality to make sense.

1 Like

Immortality lies beyond these walls. TAKE IT! IT’S YOURS!

2 Likes

Let me know what grade your thesis gets.

1 Like

Is there a formulation of ER (Eternal Return) that isn’t silly?

If so, please describe it for me.

Now don’t get me wrong, for I do understand where you’re coming from, and it’s a cool theory.

However, you seem to be misusing the word “Immortality” as it is commonly understood to apply to the eternal status of a “singular” individual.

All I have to offer is the ol’ “argumentum ad absurdum” approach, of which I have already presented elsewhere in this forum to a chap named Igor. Allow me to repost it here for your reading convenience…

We already cannot even begin to fathom how the unthinkable order of just this one universe alone came into existence.

Yet, here you are promoting a theory that relies on the utter nonsense of the MWI which suggests that billions of near exact copies of this universe (and us) simply (and just now) “sprang into existence” (branched off of this universe) due to, for example, the interplay that took place between the retina of your eye and that of the photons of light emitted by your computer screen during the few seconds it took you to read this sentence.…

…We’re talking about the “instantaneous manifestation” of billions of almost precise copies of the entire (multi-billion galaxy) universe from just one person (one tiny human) gazing at their computer screen for a few seconds,…

…never mind the 8 billion other humans on Earth gazing at varying light sources throughout the seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, and years - each one allegedly causing the branching of innumerable trillions and trillions of copies of this galaxy-packed universe.

However,…

(and setting aside the near infinite number of other quantum events that occur throughout the universe that instigate a branching)

…it doesn’t stop there.

No, for each one of those newly manifested branches (worlds / universes) contain copies of the same gazers of computer screens and light sources, which, in turn, instantly cause billions of universes to branch off of their universe, –> and so on –> and so on –> and so on.

Now, with the above in mind, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that within a span of perhaps a few seconds of just the copies of you, Igor, gazing at your little computer screen in each of the billions of universes that instantly branched off of this one, we would have a situation in which these galaxy-packed “bubbles” of reality…

…would be replicating so fast that they would appear to be the metaphorical equivalent of some kind of cosmic ball of effervescent foam, that is instantly expanding in a never-ending / omnidirectional “EXPLOSION” of branching universes.

In other words, if infinity itself were somehow able to be filled to capacity, then in a matter of just a few seconds, it would be bursting at the seams after being filled with a veritable infinity of the MWI’s branching universes - which never stop branching.

Now, if the sheer weight of, again, my “argumentum ad absurdum” isn’t enough to crush the MWI theory, then you just don’t understand (or are not making the slightest effort to visualize) what the MWI of QM actually implies.

I blame people like Sean Carrol for helping to promote a tiny-minded (false) vision of the MWI.

Just watch the first 2 minutes of this video to understand what I mean…

1 Like

Very nice, thank you.

I have no idea if MWI is true, or some variant of it. But I do know that the Mandela effect is true. So we do live in a kind of simulation, of some kind. I have no idea how that really breaks down, quantum stuff or whatever else. But something is there.

Quantum Immortality does not require a consistent/”same” “individual-who-exists”, that would be a philosophical identity fallacy. Imagine this: Someone clones you, right now. Down to the littlest bits in your DNA and quantum level qbits or quantum foam and beyond, all the way down. You are another you. Literally the exact same thing. ‘Soul’ and all (whatever it is that might mean).

Then that same person kills you, the original you. But the clone survives. In fact, you are killed at the exact same instant the clone is created. The clone has all of your memories, thoughts, habits, materialism and all metaphysical patterns, everything. And it has no awareness that it has been cloned and that the original you is dead.

So, is that not… Eternal Return? As it is really meant to be. Try to formulate an argument that you did not survive death, I dare you. Because you did survive death. You..died. And then, in the same instant, you lived again.

That is the argument here, for quantum immortality. Now you can make all the cases against MWI you want, I am not here to say MWI is true or false although I know for certainty that Mandela Effect is real and reality is indeed some kind of simulation, but all that aside because my specific knowledge of how all that shit might work is extremely limited/weak. But. BUT, given that something is there… MWI becomes in play. Especially since the mathematics of it, apparently, are legit and it is indistinguishable in terms of probability of being true compared to other QM explanations.

And if you sit and think about it for a while, knowing that simulation is somehow true, MWI isn’t that far out there. Of course the energy requirement is a factor, granted. But transcend that, consider that everything is holographic in nature and information storage and copying on that level can occur at near-zero cost just like I can transfer or copy an entire movie of data in a second with almost zero energy cost, I mean… eh, who really knows anyway. This topic is hypothetically bounded to MWI or some variant of it, not any kind of purely existentialism of Nietzsche’s fetish wish lists for his repressed religiosity or any other such thing. To each their own, of course.

No, not even close.

My whole schtick since I was 19-20 years old (I’m 76 now) involves the formulation of an argument of how we do indeed survive death, but just not in the way you are proposing.

(First of all, allow me to apologize in advance for repeatedly using the same illustrations over and over again in many of my posts. However, I created those illustrations for the very purpose of supporting my arguments in these sorts of conversations, and I see no reason not to use them whenever I feel they might help get my point across - especially to someone who is not familiar with my crazy “Ultimate Seeds” theory.)

Now, to address the above quote from you, I suggest that with your cloning thought experiment, you are demonstrating the core problem implicit in the MWI of QM (and in materialism in general).

And that core problem is the presumption that the same (measurable) quantum constituents that underpin the construction of a sun, or a rock, or the keyboard you are typing on, are no different than that which underpin the construction of life, mind, and consciousness - which (in theory) are the (un-measurable) components of the human “soul.”

Materialists need to stop treating the human soul (the human “I Am-ness”) as if it were somehow a measurable phenomenon in the same way that a photon of light or an electron are measurable.

It’s like presuming that there is no difference between the illusory components of a dream compared to that of the “dreamer” (creator / owner / manipulator) of the dream.

Furthermore, another problem I see in your cloning scenario is the failure to understand what “strong emergence” is all about.

“Strong emergence” suggests that the human “soul’ (mind / consciousness / I Am-ness) is something wholly other than the material components from which the soul emerged.

In other words, you cannot pinpoint anything (either separately or in sum) in the unconscious bits of matter that comprise the body and brain that can account for the ontological status of the (self-aware) conscious entity that awakened into existence (emerged) from, again, the bits of unconscious matter.

And the point is that just because you can pose a thought experiment where you can theoretically create a 100% perfect replication of someone’s material body and brain, it doesn’t mean that the exact same soul is going to emerge from that perfect clone.

No, it merely suggests that you have somehow managed to mimic the physiological means by which the universe (or more precisely, the Creator of this universe) awakens a completely new (and unclonable) soul into existence.

And there is where our two belief systems truly go in opposite directions.

Of course, the jury is still out regarding whether you or me (or neither of us) might be right,…

…however, you seem to believe that death is the end (oblivion) of the “original you” (your words),…

(which, if one entertains the implications of the MWI of QM, then the “you” in this universe may merely be a recent copy from that prior universe that farted this universe into existence - a prior universe that itself contained a copy of you that came into existence from an infinite series of branchings that preceded that universe. In which case, one would be hard pressed to determine how far back into the infinite past the “original you” originated :zany_face:)

…whereas I, on the other hand, believe that at the moment of death, the human soul awakens into a higher context of reality.

Now I am not suggesting that I cannot be wrong, but ^^^that^^^ is something that I am constantly implying in the illustrations that I keep boring everyone with.

This one, for example…

…which pairs nicely with this one…

…with the point being, that even though the clone in your scenario was unaware of the murder of the person that he was cloned from, it does not negate the continued existence of that other person,…

…which, clearly, as is implied in the preceding illustrations, is not the same person who was cloned. Indeed, the clone is free to visit the grave (the discarded remains / “afterbirth”) of the other person whose (again, “unclonable”) soul now resides in a higher context of reality.

The point is that even though at the moment of its inception, the clone may have been loaded with all of the memories and proclivities of the departed person, the clone would nevertheless, pretty much be the equivalent of a biological “twin” (a separate and autonomous I Am-ness) who is in possession and control of its own personal destiny - a destiny that has nothing whatsoever to do with the eternal destiny of the departed soul.

Again, I may be full of horse crap,…

…but likewise, your clone experiment would in no way negate the wonderful future of the human soul that is implied in my flagship illustration on the cover of the book I self-published back in 2008…

It may not be clear to you, but I completely agree with you that the universe is indeed a “simulation.”

Or, more accurately (at least from my own personal perspective),…

…the universe is a “dream-like” illusion that has been deftly and carefully created from the “mental holography” of a higher mind that has figured out how to replicate itself by conceiving its own familial offspring (us) within itself (within its mind) out of the living fabric of its very own being.

And…

And that brings to mind yet another problem.

And that is (like most humans) the sheer perfection of the illusion has fooled you into believing that the illusion (the “simulation” / the multi-faceted “hologram”) may be all there is to reality, when, in fact, the “real (and true) reality”…

(i.e., the originating source, or realm, or truth from which the “simulation” arises)

…is no doubt amazing beyond our wildest dreams.

The bottom line is that, yes, immortality is indeed real, but not in the way you are picturing it.

No, for immortality is something that we are all in possession of by reason of the fact that we are all - each and every one of us - the immortal “offspring” (literal children / progeny) of the fully-evolved, fully-matured “adult” version of the highest species of being in all of reality.

As I have said so many times in the past, I could be wrong, but I can’t imagine the truth of reality being more “natural” and “organic” than what I am proposing.

Quantum Transmillenialism.

Is of course even cooler.

I am not making that presumption though. At least not intentionally or directly. I assume for the sake of theoretical argument, to make a point, that it would be possible to clone someone completely. Whatever the constituents are that underpin ‘life, mind, consciousness’ (and yeah, we don’t really know a lot about what those things are yet (but I also don’t think we know nothing about it either)) would also be cloned. That is part of the thought experiment.

So while I appreciate your point, it is actually off topic here.

IF we could clone you down to even your soul-level, again I see no contradiction here. There would simply be two “you’s”, at least at that one initial moment where the copy comes into being. There are a couple options here based on how we want to think about the thought experiment: 1) you die but are perfectly cloned and your clone has your body, mind, memories and soul exactly copied except it has no awareness that it is a copy, or 2) you are copied in the way just described except you didn’t die, so now there are two of you in existence. I see no contradiction in either case, however it should be pointed out that as soon as the clone appears, regardless if you are dead or alive as the original, the clone is going to start having its own unique experiences and will almost immediately begin to diverge from being a perfect 1:1 copy of you.

So over time, even a hypothetically perfect clone would become its own being with clear distinctions from you as the original. Again, I see no contradiction in any of this.

I don’t follow, nor do I think I am presuming that.

Well, it’s not quite so black and white as you put it. It isn’t as if we have ZERO idea of where consciousness/self might come from. Look at an infant as it grows up to become an adult, for example. You can quite literally see its mind, its self, its awareness, its ‘ontological status of self-aware consciousness awakening into existence’ as it develops over time.

So how would you separate all of that change and progressive development from the “soul”? Again, we really have no idea. So I don’t think it makes sense for you to presume either way. And I do not need to pinpoint in the unconscious bits of matter wherever that ontological status or ‘soul’ comes from or why or how it is whatever it is. I fully admit I have no idea, and as far as I can tell no one else does either. Yet the point I am making here has to do with a thought experiment where it is possible to create a perfect copy. Maybe that is not possible in reality, in fact it probably isn’t. But going with MWI under the quantum immortality lens, if we assume it is possible on some sort of very far-abstracted metaphysical level of pure maths or whatever, down in the deeper realms of existence we don’t really know that much about at all yet, somewhere in the vast superposition of existence a parallel world is created and within that world holographic-like there are beings that experience it within a context of what for them is space and time, and being a split-off copy it happens to be the case that the beings created in that very moment are perfect copies rendered from the originals in the originating world… that is the entire point of the idea, to wonder at the consequences and conclusions that would result from that in terms of our sense of self/identity/being and all that good stuff.

That is not what I was positing. I was already positing that the clone is a perfect 100% copy of you, which includes whatever it is that “soul” might mean.

You cannot define, describe or explain the soul either. So why are you assuming that it cannot be cloned like the material of the body can be?

Ok now I am really curious. On what basis do you conclude or believe this? I see no reason to think this is true, although it certainly COULD BE true. But you seem very convinced. So please share your reasonings/proofs.

Again, this is just part of the thought experiment. I am not saying I believe it one way or another. I fully admit that I lack knowledge about this stuff. I have sought out such knowledge my entire life, even before I was an adult, because I am that passionate about the truth and I really wanted to know. But I never found the answer and no one with the answer ever bothered to tell is to me. So I guess I’ll just have to find out the same way most people do, for myself once I die someday.

Yes that is certainly possible, and I tend to believe something similar to that.

However it is interesting to point out that even if we are right about that, it does not necessarily preclude the quantum immortality and MWI that I am discussing in this topic. Again, you would need to prove the perfectly unclonable nature of the soul, which would be an odd thing to try and prove or even argue for… but I am genuinely curious how you would go about trying to defend the idea.