Ever since the implications of quantum entanglement between particles became unavoidable for physicists and cosmologists, the doubt of the accuracy or completeness of Einstein’s general and special theory of relativity became real… Einstein himself called quantum entanglement “spooky action at a distance” because the possibility of faster than speed of light transfer of information between two entangled particles (no matter what distance between them) would violate relativity and the fundamentals of one of the most successful theories in science…
Recently, however, several experiments have confirmed that entanglement is not only real but it seems to violate relativity.
The results of the first experiment have provided the speed of entanglement, which was measured to be at least 10.000 times faster than the speed of light. here
In the second experiment scientists have been able to send data via quantum entanglement at 1200 km distance. Next OP will be on this theme…
Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon in quantum physics where 2 particles, like photons or electrons, become entangled, or their quantum state, or properties, became interdependent. Any change to the property of one entangled particle instantaneously (or faster than speed of light) affects the other. Einstein believed that the exchange of information at the speed faster than speed of light would create paradoxes, such as sending information to the past. That was one of the reasons Einstein and many other physicists have rejected quantum mechanics as either incomplete or false. And yet, up until today, no experiment has ever contradicted any of the predictions of QM.
As the experiments clearly show, the speed of entanglement is at least 10.000 faster than the speed of light and if that is the case, then entanglement violates relativity, as quantum information about the quantum state of one entangled particle instantaneously affects the other entangled particle…
So, if that is true, as it clearly appears to be, why didn’t we hear about it on the News?
What I would like to do with this OP is to get everyone involved to state their opinion or provide facts why these news have not been widely spread or accepted…
As most of you probably suspect, I have my own theory about it…Yes, just a theory…for now… 😉
BTW: I love quantum mechanics…
Just like Steven Weinberg once said: <strong><i>”Once you learn quantum mechanics you are really never the same again…”
You’d have to ask walto he is the one who brought it up as a reason to deny quantum immortality .
Peace
I’m not particularly interested in any of those things they seem to me to be a rabbit trail. However several folks here seem to think that the issue of walto’s indistinguishably is relevant to this topic.
I would simply say that if the MWI is correct there is no way to say which walto is the true walto.
So by extension each and every walto is the true walto given materialism or none of them are.
I recall a thought experiment in which a future women’s brain ( call her Alice) is comprehensively and perfectly downloaded into an advanced computer.
Now you have two beings each claiming to be the real Alice how can a materialist choose between the two.
That is the sort of thing I find interesting
peace
I would tend to agree. The problem is that once we eliminate Copenhagen and MWI the pickings start to get slim.
peace
for starters sphere one is appears to me to be in one spot and sphere two is in another (possibly to it’s left or right).
The author of the idea thought so.
There is an experiment to test the idea.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/5891740/quantum-suicide-how-to-prove-the-multiverse-exists-in-the-most-violent-way-possible
peace
I find the basic idea of Bohmian mechanics quite interesting but I don’t know enough to be an advocate or critic of it. But since we don’t have any version of quantum mechanics that’s compatible with general relativity, I don’t get too caught up with any of these issues. And since we don’t even have a single unified comprehensive theory of fundamental physics, I don’t think the prospects are good for “reducing” biology to physics. Heck, we don’t even know how to “reduce” Mendelian genetics to molecular genetics, or psychology to neuroscience!
The most one could say is this: given the many worlds interpretation, there exist universes in which there are counterparts of us which differ by virtue of some quantum mechanical event. That’s not to say that a counterpart exists in every universe — there are universes in which my parents never met, or in which they never had children, or had a daughter instead of a son, etc.
That aside, since I am mortal in this universe, then all of my counterparts are also mortal as well. No immortality to be found in the MWI.
I know where you’re coming from…
If you’d like to sharpen your understanding of the possibility of immortality from QM prospective, I’d recommended Penrose/Hameroff quantum consciousness theory called Orch OR…
Their 20 year predictions have recently been verified by experiments…
I don’t think OOR proves immortality, at least not yet…
However, the quantum information conservation law can validate their theory of the conservation of our experiences, memory etc. If they are proven to be quantum…
Is this the argument then? I’m asking because you won’t just tell us.
If you want to hypothesize immortality ,what is it that is immortal?
Computers are beings?
Pick the original.
How does a non materialist answer the question?
Essences are necessary properties, characteristics that make something the sort of thing it is. So, e.g. persons are sometimes held to be essentially sentient. Note that’s not true of human beings. Other species (including alien ones) might be said tto be persons if and only if they’re sentient, while some human beings (which, presumably, essentially have a certain sort of DNA) are not sentient, and so, not persons based on that definition. Iguanas may be essentially reptilian.
An individual essence (or ‘haecceity’) is thought by some philosophers to be an essential property of an indivual item, a property that can be had by nothing but that individual and is had by that individual in every possible world in which it exists.
I note again that most philosophers these days who think that no person could be anybody else (though many might have been seamstresses rather than a plumbers) nevertheless do not rely on haecceities.
And I don’t think one needs them to deny that MMI entails immortality. Why Everett or anybody else thinks it might has still received no explanation or support on this thread, in spite of my repeated request for any argument to that effect,
How are you getting on with your replication of the “think to affect interference lines” experement?
Nothing seems to stop you aging, so who wants to be an immortal pile of dust?
So the answer seems to be “No”, that entanglement does not violate relativity.
yawn.
in this case walto
peace
no one I’d suppose.
What you want and what you get are two different things
peace
Alice is a person the computer is just a computer that pretends to be Alice
peace
Why does there always have to be an argument??
I’m just fleshing out the implications of materialism given the MWI
peace
why does the original have priority?
peace
Maybe but not enough to test it on himself and achieve quantum immortality.
`
Your claim of ‘an implication is a claim that immortality FOLLOWS from MWI. I would like to know how. Capisce?
Since you can’t or won’t tell us, I’ll give it a whirl for you. (I get so little thanks for this kind of thing here {sniff} )
Let walto be anyone born to aggie and sig in 1952.
According to MWI, whenever walto dies in some world there’s at least one other world in which he doesn’t.
Therefore, according to MWI at any time t subsequent to 1952, there is always some world in which there is a walto who is not dead.
Therefore, walto is immortal.
Is that the basic idea?
Only if some timeline / world created by a decision by W allows him to be immortal. If that is not a possible world, no immortality.
I wonder ,when W turns left rather than right and creates a new world, would that create a new timeline for every person in the world in order to populate the new time line?
In other words MWI allows one to create the Universe and everything that ever was by deciding on chocolate rather than vanilla.If one is a literal creationist we would create God Himself.
It is the original. “something serving as a model or basis for imitations or copies.”
You did not answer my question. Since your point seems to be demonstrate the deficiencies of materialism since you have mentioned materialism repeatedly, please provide the alternate view.
No you are fleshing out the implication of a version of MWI, you keep getting that wrong.
W is asking why the version you choose makes sense otherwise you are fleshing implications of a strawman.
Not to be morbid but by the year 2200 in every possible world, there may be no possible world in which a person born 1952 is still alive. We cannot know.
Yes. And there seem to me a number of other problems with it too. But perhaps that’s not the actual argument. We may never know. Certainly FMM isn’t going to tell us.
Perhaps you should adopt the pose and await revelation?
The world will never know.
For what it’s worth, the second premise is false. What the argument needs is some additional premise that takes us from,
1. For any individual P1 existing in a universe U1, there exists at least one another universe U2 in which P2 exists.
to
2. For any universe Un, there exists an individual Pn.
I don’t see how that argument is going to work without a quantifier-shift fallacy.
Kantian Naturalist,
The second premise looks false to me too.
It all looks like bullshit to me. In the absence of evidence, it’s all Harry Potter stuff.
I’m striving for quantum immorality.
ha ha …very funny…I think…or I should think it should be funny coming from you…
High five! Good job!
For those who are confused about my comment to Kan, here is a quote from Wiki regarding Shannons/Van Newman theories:
“The von Neumann entropy is being extensively used in different forms (conditional entropies, relative entropies, etc.) in the framework of quantum information theory.[10] Entanglement measures are based upon some quantity directly related to the von Neumann entropy. However, there have appeared in the literature several papers dealing with the possible inadequacy of the Shannon information measure, and consequently of the von Neumann entropy as an appropriate quantum generalization of Shannon entropy.[citation needed] The main argument is that in classical measurement the Shannon information measure is a natural measure of our ignorance about the properties of a system, whose existence is independent of measurement.
Conversely, quantum measurement cannot be claimed to reveal the properties of a system that existed before the measurement was made.[11] This controversy has encouraged some authors to introduce the non-additivity property of Tsallis entropy (a generalization of the standard Boltzmann–Gibbs entropy) as the main reason for recovering a true quantum information measure in the quantum context, claiming that non-local correlations ought to be described because of the particularity of Tsallis entropy.”
I would rephrase it like this
“There is always some world in which walto does not die.”
It’s in the neighborhood I suppose.
peace
I would say that it’s a very tall order to show that immortality is impossible in a particular world.
Unlikely yes but impossible is something else entirely.
I would expect there is a path that leads to immortality in almost every world it might not be a happy immortality but that is beside the point.
I think this is an important point. In the MWI it seems that everyone is in a sense the creator of his own reality.
peace
Well, that premise certainly doesn’t follow from the MWI.
Finally something I can understand!
So, is walto both dead and alive in other worlds just like the Schrodinger’s cat?
here again is a syllogism that I’m playing with.
premise one: something empirically equivalent to the many worlds interpretation is plausibly correct
premise two: Given the many worlds interpretation at least one individual that is indistinguishable from walto will never die.
conclusion: If the many worlds interpretation and a materialist understanding of
consciousness/personhood is correct walto is immortal.
peace
again from here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality
quote:
Putting aside the philosophical problems associated with individual identity and its persistence, we may assert that, under the many-worlds interpretation, the experimenter continues to exist through all of their superpositions where the outcome of the experiment is that they live. In other words, we may say that the experimenter survives all iterations of the experiment, whichever its number. Since the superpositions where the experimenter lives occur by quantum necessity (again, under the many-worlds interpretation), it follows that their survival, after any realizable number of iterations, is physically necessary; hence, the notion of quantum immortality.
end quote:
peace
Not exactly. In the MWI walto is both the cat and the scientist who looks in the box.
Since a dead scientist can’t observe anything walto is necessarily always alive.
get it??
peace
fifth,
I think you lost me…
Your claim is not even QM.
Do you have a theorem to support it? I’d love to read it…if it exists…
The second premise is false, and it’s invalid to boot. The first premise is ok, tho you don’t need that ’empirically indisguishable’ bit. Otherwise, a total mess. But at least I get where you’re coming from now.
Thanks.
I’m sorry but you need to elaborate here.
That premise is pretty much just a summary of the quantum immortality idea that was advocated by Everett himself.
If you think you understand the MWI better than the guy that formulated it then It behooves you to explain exactly where he erred.
I posted the syllogism at the very beginning of this conversation I’m not sure how you could have missed it.
Like I said it’s very much a work in progress. I’d certainly like some help in cleaning it up
peace
Of course it’s QM. I don’t have my own theorem I just encountered the idea a few months ago.
here is a Wikipedia page with a summary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality
Here is an overview from astrophysicist Ethan Siegel he is pretty entertaining.
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/quantum-immortality-5a74caaa0f64
Check them out and if you have questions I will try and help you out if I can.
peace
I don’t know much about MWI, but it’s pretty clear that Everett didn’t have even a faint idea what immortality means. And you need to do some work on what a valid syllogism looks like.
You’ve got too many terms, for example: stuff turns up in the conclusion that’s not mentioned anywhere before it. But there’s a bunch of stuff prior that’s not there for any reason too, like, as I mentioned the “empirically equivalent” in 1. The problems with 2 are manifold. as Newton, Neil and I have explained a bunch of times already (and I note that you have made no responses). Furthermore, as KN added, since MWI is supposed to be a scientific theory, each world must be physically as well as metaphysically possible. So we need evidence that it’s physically possible for a human being to persist 200, 300, 500, etc. years. Say we agree that if any walto persists, I do (which is already ridiculous) so that I could be argued to persist because one version freezes himself: it needs to be physically (not just logically) possible that this counterpart walto can be thawed and be alive and conscious 500,000 years after being frozen. What’s the evidence for that? And our galaxy isn’t immortal itself, so even if any of those speculations made sense (which they don’t) how can some entity stuck inside it be summarily claimed to be? In a word, (2) is a pile of baloney.
The introduction of the materialist biz in the conclusion blows up any possibility of validity. You’d need to introduce that in one or more premises. And materialism seems to me to be not particularly friendly to immortality because on its view, personhood seems to depend on brain meat which gets older and older.
Take it and do what you will with it.
I just hope I make it to my next vacation.
Have you investigated the whole singularity thingy. According to this idea you can download your consciousness into a computer and continue to exist that way. In the story the aliens resurrected the protagonist’s physical body.
None of these things has to be remotely likely they just have to be physically possible.
I thought I made it clear that I share your philosophical reservations. The point is most folks who follow this sort of thing are simply not interested in philosophy.
They think that science has no need of philosophy.
I’m trying to view this from the garden variety materialist perspective that says that if something is physically identical to walto it is simply walto.
Again the reason for the “materialist” qualifier is to specify that we are looking from the perspective of a certain type of individual.
The Folks here who frequently poo poo any talk of metaphysics
I’ll do some minor tweaking and get back too you.
thanks and peace
tweaking
Frantic and compuslive behaviour often associated with methamphetamine abuse (crank). People who regularly abuse crank may find themselves unable to stop a particular random activity like searching drawers, having sex, or putting things apart. This is called tweaking.
Do you take that functionalist perspective to be materialist?
In any case, you can’t introduce that concept in the conclusion of a syllogism.