Quantum suicide and immortality

For a while now I have been learning about some very cool theories that naturally derive from quantum mechanics, which I feel like I have to share with everyone, if anything, to credit the authors with innovation and creativity.

1. Under the "quantum suicide" theory (proposed by Hans Moravec), a scientist is standing in front of a gun which has a trigger rigged in such a way that it goes off based on the decay of a radioactive atom. Of course, with each half-life progression of the experience, there is a 50-50 chance that the gun would go off, and eventually it will, killing the scientist. The idea is however that under the multiple-universe theory, with each decay step of the atom, the scientist would also split into another universe. This creades the paradox that will lead the not-yet-dead scientist to continue to live, so the experiment would continue without end.

2. The "quantum immortality" theory is much the same in that a scientist standing next to a nuclear bomb detonates the bomb. The scientist will die instantly in most instances, however there will be an infinitely small set of alternative universes in which he will survive.

The scary thing (if it can be called scary) is that this is in theory possible. Of course the chance of it happening is so remote that it would be the equivalent of something like one in a trillion trillion trillion billions for example, or to put it more into context, it would would take so many repetitions of the experiment for this to occur that the scientist would have to repeat it over and over again from the big bang on for many millions of years into the future.

Another comparison to illustrate the time-frame we are talking about would be an example similar to what Brian Greene is using in his book The Elegant Universe. Assuming the string theory is at least partially correct, what differentiates the makeup of atoms and ultimately materials from each other is the vibration frequency of each string (which can change over time), so in theory, if I would push against a wall with my hands starting at the big bang and do it for a long-enough period of time (billions of years) I would in fact pass through the wall eventually.

What is ultimately truly fascinating, is that under these theories, things will never cease to exist, nor would persons! Where does this stand in relation to Preterism or Christianity?

You can read more on the Everett Many-Worlds interpretation here.




14 Sep, 2005 | Virgil
« Prev item - Next Item »

Comments


by Chris - 15 Sep, 2005 - 04:59:14
Haha!

I actually think about this EVERY DAY.

by Virgil - 15 Sep, 2005 - 07:55:30
Bah...i've already tried this...see, I am still alive!

by Doug - 19 Sep, 2005 - 11:06:28
I love this line from your link:

"It's not hard to see why so many people find these ideas disturbing. For if they are correct, they have profound implications for our understanding of the nature of the Soul, because the Soul (if there is such a thing) must branch along with the worlds that contain it. It would appear that the writings on which many contemporary religions are based make no mention of such an idea."

What if we are really in the Matrix, except the Matrix is not run by machines or E.T.s but is simply a "program" running in the mind of God...

- Doug

by Virgil - 19 Sep, 2005 - 12:43:31
Doug I know what you mean. There are some huge implications to what we are talking about here. In theory, given enough time, this provides for the idea that everything that could ever happen will eventually happen, i.e. the outcome of every single situation will take place and all possible events will occur. Pretty fascinating stuff eh? :)

by Rich Duncan - 27 Sep, 2005 - 07:15:30
Virgil, while things like this might be fun to sit around and think about (which I do myself all the time), they are far from being even remotely true. Just like the evolutionist who takes it upon himself to just assume certain things will happen and are possible, so do all these theories. For example, just as the evolutionist assume that if the right conditions are given life will some how just come into being. They need these assumptions to make they theories work. These theories have all the same assumptions. For example, theory #2: "The "quantum immortality" theory is much the same in that a scientist standing next to a nuclear bomb detonates the bomb. The scientist will die instantly in most instances; however there will be an infinitely small set of alternative universes in which he will survive." In this statement you state "The scientist will die instantly in most instances; however there will be an infinitely small set of alternative universes in which he will survive". First, you have assumed that alternate universes even exist. Secondly, you've assumed there is a connection between these alternate universes, and third, you've assumed that a person exist in all these alternate universes.

You go on to say, "The scary thing (if it can be called scary) is that this is in theory possible." *Everything* is *theory* is possible, that is why they are called theories. Your use of the word theory is misleading. You make it sound as if in reality it's possible, but just remote. That is a completely different ball-game. The problem is, there is not one single thread of evidence in the universe that even hints to the possibility of it being possible. These are pure theories in the mind of man with no evidence; purely day-dreaming on the part of man. Completely 100% abstract.

You gone on to further state, "Of course the chance of it happening is so remote that it would be the equivalent of something like one in a trillion trillion trillion billions for example".

Ah, the solution to everything. Throw enough time at it and it could eventually happen. Another assumption the evolutionist lives by. Here's the problem. Everything is not possible. It's not possible, and never will be, for me to walk outside, jump up like superman and start flying. You (it seems) and others, always start with an assumption that everything is possible, but just very unlikely, and then built your theories upon that assumption. It’s impossible for me to start flying. The chances are zero, not 1 in 10^100000000000000000000000000000....but zero.

by Virgil - 27 Sep, 2005 - 07:34:38
Rich, concerning quantum mechanics, I am not nearly smart enough to make these claims. People like Stephen Hawkins and Brian Greene make these claims. I highly recomment taking on some introductory books on the matter...you will find them educational and useful :)

by Rich - 27 Sep, 2005 - 10:42:10
Virgil, sorry, I didn't mean to imply these were your theories. I am familiar with these theories and their "creators", such as Hawkins. As an Engineer, and educated in the sciences, I like thinking about such possibilities as much as the next guy. But, as I was pointing out, these are pure theories created by these advocates. They haven't any proof of anything to shape them upon. Like, I was trying to point out, they have some foundational assumptions that they start with (such as any thing being possible statistically, you just need to give it enough time), and then they build upon them. My thought to you was more along the lines that you seem to have bought into their assumptions, thus the reasons you think their theories are "possible". I reject their theories as being possible based upon their assumptions. Fun and fanciful to the mind these theories are, but reality is a different story. Now, that is not to say everything they theorize about I reject, such as the structure of the space time continuum. Will it be possible to bend space someday, which might allow us to travel very far distances? Might be. Will we be able to create worm holes someday? Maybe. I will say this. The entire key to all these theories is gravity. Once man discovers the true nature and physics of gravity, many fanciful ideas will become reality.

How about the spiritual considerations to some of these theories? If I exist in these differing "worlds", and in one world I accept Jesus but in the others I reject Him, am I saved? How about if Adam and Eve never sinned in one of these other worlds; do I even need to be saved? If I don’t need to be saved in that world, then how can I need to be saved in this world. How can I die physically in this world and yet continue to live in another? Can’t I exist in hell for eternity in one world and exist in heaven for eternity in another?

by Windpressor - 27 Sep, 2005 - 23:54:58
***********

Surviving a "nukuler" detonation would require some extraordinary conditions and the presence of a Divine rationale such as was recorded in Daniel 3 --

...
...
... 26 Nebuchadnezzar then approached the opening of the blazing furnace and shouted, "Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, servants of the Most High God, come out! Come here!"
So Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego came out of the fire, 27 and the satraps, prefects, governors and royal advisers crowded around them. They saw that the fire had not harmed their bodies, nor was a hair of their heads singed; their robes were not scorched, and there was no smell of fire on them. ...
...
...

If you don't want to chance atomic disruptions in the continuum, then
you might want to try something a bit less strenuous. You could situate yourself in the middle of rail tracks, disagree with the causality of approaching transit mass and make entreaty to the persuasions of the Divine rationale; just don't expect much company in that discussion or many prayer partners.

If you think you have umpteen trillion alternate chances to survive once or twice, go ahead knock yourself out. I will go get a mega-something lottery ticket; the odds of survival are much better.

>.......

by Windpressor - 28 Sep, 2005 - 00:11:20
*********

Oh yeah. I just remembered. It was the book,
"Jonathan Livingston Seagull"
that pressed the notion that pushing the limits of existence might just eventually lead to death which is nothing more than puncturing your way, as through a vale, into a new realm.

For what it is worth; the book was authored in collusion with Scientology precepts and heavily promoted by Scientology members.

.......

by Amie - 06 Oct, 2005 - 08:50:51
Interesting theory (Many-Worlds). It takes me back to the old series "Sliders" I used to watch. I had never thought much about the "soul". It would almost mean that as each "us" dies, a portion of the soul is released from what is almost a stronghold, eventually becoming singularly our identity. What a trip.

Thought you might enjoy this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/scienc...

by Amie - 06 Oct, 2005 - 08:56:41
Lisa Randall, in the link that I gave, solves a math equation concerning gravity's weakness. Folks had assumed that it was leaking outward and the problem wasn't working out.

She thought "What if it leaks inward from somewhere else" and the math problem was solved.

Without getting into the M theory and such, and just considering this possible leak from outside, I was reminded of a book that I read recently which demonstrates that light quite possible could exist outside of time.

It seems that light would in some way originate from there and our messing with atoms and such to "create light" is just opening a door.

So, what if everything we experiance as a "thing", is actually a weak representative from outside time?

Leave comment

(comments are moderated and will need to be approved)
:

Permitted HTML: <a>, <i>, <b>, <u>, <strike>, <blockquote>
Line breaks will be added automatically.

:
:




© 2008 unfinishedchristianity.com | Designed by DesignsByDarren
Ported to Nucleus CMS: Suvoroff