Many-Worlds Theory Question

[Daird]

Okay, so one of the major points of the many-worlds theory is so-called quantum immortality: the idea that since everything that can happen does happen, then in some timeline we are able to have an uninterrupted stream of consciousness from now until eternity, and that's what we will experience.

But if that's the case, why hasn't this theory been rejected, since every night, we go into a period of dreamless sleep, in which we lose consciousness?

 

[GoodGame]

Okay, so one of the major points of the many-worlds theory is so-called quantum immortality: the idea that since everything that can happen does happen, then in some timeline we are able to have an uninterrupted stream of consciousness from now until eternity, and that's what we will experience.

But if that's the case, why hasn't this theory been rejected, since every night, we go into a period of dreamless sleep, in which we lose consciousness?

Hmmm...I feel like your entangling soliphism with many-worlds. Or maybe you are confusing Many-worlds with Many-minds (re. your point about consciousness interactions)?

I understand quantum immortality is more of a thought experiment, so it's not a hypothesis that you can really falsify and experiment with. Thus you really can't prove or disprove of it, because it's essentially an idea. You can use the thought experiment to explain and develop the idea. If that idea can eventually be developed into a testable hypothesis, then you can experiment on it and reach convincing evidence.


I myself don't believe any Many-Worlds is falsifiable (how would you track the movement of a quantum through worlds, to prove Many-Worlds?). I know Wikipedia insists some professionals believe in it.

 

[uppi]

To clarify the terminology: Many-Worlds is not a scientific theory of any kind, but an interpretation of quantum theory. So this is more of a philosophic debate than a scientific one.

And I would not call quantum immortality a major point of the Many-Worlds interpretation. It is more of a fringe idea that is not very popular even among Many-Worlds proponents. Every time your world "splits" (and when exactly that happens is a major problem in my opinion), your consciousness also has to split. So there is now another copy of you that you can never interact with. Why should this be any different on death? The consciousness also splits and one lives while the other dies. The living copy is no use for the consciousness that is now disappearing.

But I think losing consciousness during sleep could be argued away: The person waking up gets to be conscious again as a continuation of the consciousness that went to sleep. So there is an uninterupted stream of consciousness that can not be linked to a stream of time, however. (Does anyone know, how the concept of the arrow of time is handled in Many-Worlds, anyway?)

 

[Perfection]

Quantum immortality is not a point of Many-worlds theory. It is an extremely controversial idea that some say may be a consequence of it. It rests upon ideas involving personal identity that are quite dubious. Many-words theory is much more respected and mainstream then quantum immortality.

However, your objection to quantum immortality is not really apt because the uninterrupted nature of consciousness is from the internal perspective not external. You feel an internal continuity in experience (I went to sleep, then I woke up), even if an external observer notes times you weren't aware (He went to sleep, he was sleeping, he woke up)

edit: Uppi posted while I was composing this making many overlapping points

 

[GoodGame]

But I think losing consciousness during sleep could be argued away: The person waking up gets to be conscious again as a continuation of the consciousness that went to sleep. So there is an uninterupted stream of consciousness that can not be linked to a stream of time, however. (Does anyone know, how the concept of the arrow of time is handled in Many-Worlds, anyway?)

But sleep is pretty well understood in neuroscience, so I can't imagine running to quantum theory to try to explain it, especially not in a Many-Worlds manner.

I just read an opinion that the arrow of time is an 'illusion' of quantum decoherence in Many-Worlds, and that the states of matter are fully reversible. The idea is that each individual world only sees a chunk of the wave function, which doesn't actually collapse (as it crosses many worlds) so each world is left with the impression that time is irreversible (i.e. feeling that they can't return to earlier state of matter).

HMM....Does many-worlds allow for communication between worlds for a blind men studying an elephant (i.e. un-collapsible wave function)?

I also just thinking of the possibility of pre-'big bang' instance of many-worlds. Could there be any worlds that are locked in a pre-'big bang' instance while some worlds are post-'big bang', or are all the worlds locked together at one 'big bang' which then rapidly creates many worlds as the 'big bang' unfolds?

 

[uppi]

But sleep is pretty well understood in neuroscience, so I can't imagine running to quantum theory to try to explain it, especially not in a Many-Worlds manner.

It's not trying to explain sleep, but trying to interpret it in a quantum immortality framework. If anyone wants to seriously consider quantum immortality (not that I do), he would need to address these points

I just read an opinion that the arrow of time is an 'illusion' of quantum decoherence in Many-Worlds, and that the states of matter are fully reversible. The idea is that each individual world only sees a chunk of the wave function, which doesn't actually collapse (as it crosses many worlds) so each world is left with the impression that time is irreversible (i.e. feeling that they can't return to earlier state of matter).

For a single world that makes sense (and is arguably the explanation for the arrow of time in the Copenhagen interpretation), but even the global wavefunction has a non-reversible time evolution. It is far more likely for the worlds to split than for them to rejoin. So the number of worlds (if you could count them, anyway) increases all the time. Therefore I would argue, that the entropy of the global wavefunction increases, so the arrow of time cannot be an illusion. As the global wavefunction cannot decohere, that cannot be an explanation.

HMM....Does many-worlds allow for communication between worlds for a blind men studying an elephant (i.e. un-collapsible wave function)?

I would say that falls under the no-communcation theorem and is impossible.

I also just thinking of the possibility of pre-'big bang' instance of many-worlds. Could there be any worlds that are locked in a pre-'big bang' instance while some worlds are post-'big bang', or are all the worlds locked together at one 'big bang' which then rapidly creates many worlds as the 'big bang' unfolds?

Possibly. Depends on what, if anything, was before the Big Bang. There is unlikely to be any accessible evidence for this, so you can speculate all you want.

 

[Gigaz]

For a single world that makes sense (and is arguably the explanation for the arrow of time in the Copenhagen interpretation), but even the global wavefunction has a non-reversible time evolution. It is far more likely for the worlds to split than for them to rejoin. So the number of worlds (if you could count them, anyway) increases all the time. Therefore I would argue, that the entropy of the global wavefunction increases, so the arrow of time cannot be an illusion. As the global wavefunction cannot decohere, that cannot be an explanation.

Not necessarily. The global wavefunction might even have a revival and return to it's initial state after some time. You could even tell when if you'd know the energy eigenvalues of the universe.

 

[uppi]

Not necessarily. The global wavefunction might even have a revival and return to it's initial state after some time. You could even tell when if you'd know the energy eigenvalues of the universe.

Considering the number of eigenvalues and that you would have to find a common multiple of all of them, I have to say: That is not going to happen!

 

[Perfection]

Considering the number of eigenvalues and that you would have to find a common multiple of all of them, I have to say: That is not going to happen!

Why do you think God created the Universe?

 

[FredLC]

If what you want is some semblance of immortality, perhaps you can take comfort with the fact that relativity implies that time is an universal expanse, and every moment of your life is inexorably contained in such expanse. So, in a sense, we are indeed immortal, even if our consciences does not perceive it.

Regards .