What does Veeky Forums think about quantum suicide and immortality?

>why is it possible for our brain to imagine something that is not true or doesn't exist?

Because our brain isn't wired to know capital T-Truth. It's wired to know and understand functional categories that make us more capable of surviving and reproducing, which doesn't have to include actually true things.

imagine the end/border of the universe

Ok I just did. What was your point?

you are lying

I think people without physics degrees shouldn't talk about QM

If someone uses "quantum" as an adjective for a philosophical idea, there's a 100% chance that idea is garbage.

>your fapping fantasies aren't real, user.

We use modal realism all the time. Modal realism taken to its proper conclusion makes even modal worlds real. The truths of modal reality are actual truths, not fake truths.

Absolute nonsense

Holy shit this.

but quantum mechanics tells us that nothing is 100% certain :^)

I know we use it, but the problem isn't the postulation, the problem is how you gather knowledge of such a thing.

This is literally the same discussion you can have about Kant's postulation of the noumena; you can postulate the existence of such a thing, but as long as it isn't possible to gather knowledge of such a thing, it might as well not exist.

But we use modal realism to gather knowledge all the time. That's why modal realism can be (taken to its extreme) seen as real.

>The cat in the box isn't both dead and alive at the same time, it is only one of the states, but the knowledge of which state it is in, is lost.
It actually is a superposition of both states until the actual state is measured. Of course a cat in a box is not a quantum system, it is just a metaphor to show that such an idea is crazy, but it turned out to be true, so it is used to illustrate it (poorly).

It isn't the case that one state exist and we just don't know it, it really is so that no case has manifested until it is checked. An observation in this case does not mean a scientist using a device, it is any interaction with the environment that would trigger actualization.

Perhaps you should've read what I said one more time.

I did say that what is lost is "knowledge" or if you want, information.

Any interaction will trigger actualization of course, but the point I was trying to make is that quantum immortality and popculture memes like it come from a failure to understand the physics involved.

>I did say that what is lost is "knowledge" or if you want, information.
But it isn't, the "knowledge" literally does not exist before the measurement.

I agree, but now you're being pedantic.

supposing that there is a real truth, and your distinction between the actual truth and the fake truth is not merely a means of persuasion.

why are nerds so protective of their "science"
seriously, nothing more cringy than watching Veeky Forums cry about "muh pop-sci"
whats wrong with people like le black science man popularizing physics and astronomy?the more kids watch it and enjoy it the better

OP demonstrates the problem nicely - it leads to all sorts of misnomers about science, such as the one he is alluding towards. It's akin to the Hollywood pop-sci concept that science proves dogs have souls because they collapse waveforms, just by misconstruing the term "observed". You end up with folks using pop-sci to promote bizarre religious ideas, like "The Secret" and other such quantum-woo, that makes people distrust real science all the more, promoting anti-intellectualism in turn. And it certainly doesn't begin nor end with quantum-woo, or even relativity-woo.

Then, when science, that is to say, actual science, tells you that you need to change a behavior in some unprofitable way, or otherwise spend money to prevent a dire situation of one sort or another, it's all that much easier to dismiss actual science. Further, when pop-sci comes in and takes, what should be non-partisan issues, and makes them political, huge swaths of the population turn against science and reason in general.

(Not that "Le Black Science" man is a problem himself - sometimes he even aims to disassemble such misnomers. Veeky Forums just hates that guy cuz he's a nigger.)

I didnt see OP claiming anything, he asked a simple question about people's opinion on a subject and half of the autists got butthurt saying that you shouldnt talk on the matter if you dont have phd in physics.By that logic, this board should be closed because probably less than 1% of the people here are actual historians or philosophically educated.
And considering that this is a board for humanities, i presume he was more interested in the philosophical view on the subject, rather than the scientific explanation and possibility
Just my two cents, im just sick of people trying to act hollier-than-thou if you even dare discussing a subject from their sphere of interest

The whole concept is based on a scientific misnomer, not a philosophical concept...

...Not that we don't get a whole lotta threads here based on philosophical misnomers as well.

Granted, I don't entirely disagree with you, and given the age-range around here, it is indeed unreasonable to expect everyone who starts a thread to have a masters in whatever subject they are speaking, I'm just saying that's the poisonous aspect of pop-sci in general, and is indeed something that should be combated.

It's also a poisonous aspect of pop-philosophy, which is actually a tad more insidious, and tends to poison pop-scientists in turn, creating a kinda vicious anti-intellectual circle.

Dawkinsian "skepticism" is pure ideology (sniff sniff), it assumes that basic physics is all there is to the world, everything can be predicted by it and you should not concern yourself with anything different.

Also, Dawkins implying that his meme theory is not philosophical but 100 percent scientific.

Spoken like someone following pure ideology.

Not that Dawkins isn't a hack throwing dirt in folk's faces for sake of a sensationalist reaction, and promoting an attitude that generates a reactionary movement against basic reason and logic in general, but that movement is just as dogmatic and idealistic as the caricature he portrays.

none of those quotes mean anything without the appropriate context, i don't like anyone on the right of that image but still.

heh, I once met Krauss in a club in Prague, he was drunk as shit and hitting on 2 blondes who very obviously didn't believe/give a shit he was a famous scientist as he was telling them.

Did he check for electrical infetterence?

It's a bit disingenuous putting Dawkins and Krauss in the same category as Bill Nye, I can understand being annoyed about them sticking their nose into philosophy and religion rather than sticking to science but seriously they are both significant and important scientists, Dawkins was one of the most influential biologists of the late 20th Century. Even Black Science Guy is a legit scientist with some minor contributions to astronomy.

Think it says more about how education has changed over time. Those three all have Ph.D.'s, but a Ph.D. no longer means what it stands for. The fact that you could get one and make statements that suggest that modern philosophy is concerned primarily with the "meaning of meaning", or that "philosophy doesn't progress", suggests they weren't even required take a 101 or "history of" cursory glance at the subject, where it used to be a fairly in depth understanding of Philosophy was the foundation of all higher education, regardless of specialty.

Shame, as it is likely that lack of foundation is in part why it seems, so often and to so many, they are building castles in the sky.

this whole picture is nothing but a big meme. All of those quotes are out of context

Sure I understand where the annoyance is coming from but to put them in a list of "pop-scientists" as opposed to "real scientists" is an astonishingly poor way to make the argument and obviously fallacious.

I'm not sure that's true mate, I have no interest in Bill Nye at all but the other three have all made fairly unambiguous statements bashing philosophy and philosophers on multiple occasions.

That pic is literally "German mindset vs American mindset", with or without context.
Also why Neil has those 420 eyes?

You aren't going to find any American intellectuals dissing philosophy before 1950 either.

>nothing
Nothing related to quantum mechanics !

meme concept

>I mean it as a compliment when I say that you could almost define a philosopher as someone who won't take common sense for an answer
There's nothing wrong with this quote. Taking common sense for an answer is a retard thing to do.

>By all means, let's be open minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out
If I'm not mistaken, this one is being misrepresented. Without context, it is difficult to tell what it is he is mocking. For example, this would be a very valid response in an argument against a young earth creationist if they were to claim that science can't disprove god therefore young earth creationism is true.

But Dawkins is Kenyan.

Whoops, meant to reply to

The theory of evolution is not philosophical at all though. Philosophical interpretations can be made based on it, but the science itself is as objective and empiric as the electromagnetic field theory.

Biological evolution is empirical, but natural selection is deeply philosophical.

Natural selection is also empirical, it just has philosophical connotations that can be drawn from/unto it.

You can show natural selection happens empirically, but you can also come to the same conclusion a priori

Many world is bullshit. There's another thing that works the same way and makes more sense, though.
>try to kill yourself with a gun
>the bullet mangling your brain interrupts consciousness
>universe ends after an irrelevan amount of time and a new big bang occurs (0 time passes from your point of view since the your biochemical system is dismantled)
>after x cycles, the exact same atoms, in the exact same state and configuration "continue" your consciousness from the point you left off
>after y more cycles, your consciousness continues, but the particles forming the bullet/firing pin/etc. are defective
>from your perspective, the gun misfires immediately and nothing happens while near infinite universes have passed by
>this practically makes you (from your point of view) invulnerable and immortal since your consciousness is only "continued" when probability aligns the factors just right after uncountable tries

That's some of the worst reasoning I've ever heard

kys and check it :-DDDDD

>whats wrong with people like le black science man popularizing physics and astronomy?
What's wrong is people who don't understand the maths end up making ridicululous interpretations based on vague verbal summaries. The mathematical component isn't optional. The whole reason anyone does all that work with maths to begin with is because the topic they're dealing with is too built up and abstract to handle through ordinary everyday speech and intuition.

By the same reasoning 'you' would live infinite lives, occupying every possible theoretical space and time. The very definition of 'you' is what exists now, in this space and time, without a relative point of reference (the rest of this universe) 'you' would just be something else.

This is basically how it works I'm pretty sure. But a human being still lives a finite life, so unless there's a way to establish continuity of consciousness into a younger brain or something you still die after a certain number of years.

>finite life
Since there's always a insignificant probability that something prolongs your life, your consciousness is continued in that universe. Basically (from your point of view), you lie dying in a hospital for x years, being saved by a constant stream of miraculous medical breakthroughs (dying endless deaths from other's point of view).

On a second thought, this might be responsible for the "mandela effect" since people might constantly be getting their consciousness shifted to a slightly different universes after random deaths.

I guess the bigger question is why it isn't possible to "jump" to different versions of yourself based on proximity if this theory is true. IE, why can you only move along one timeline except in instances of death. What makes death special?

>What makes death special?
Interruption of consciousness.

reddit concept

amazing post lad

>quantum suicide and immortality
cringe

>everything is reddit

more like reddit suicide

Quality Veeky Forums discussion

We should try it on prisoners
For realsies, think about it.
Keep going until one of em never dies

The cat in a box is not a metaphor, it's a thought experiment. It proposes a device designed to directly link the superposition of a caesium atom with the life of a cat. It's not a story for telling people how quantum works, it's a story for telling people to decide properly how they think quantum interacts with the large scale world.

You wouldn't be able to make the 'jump' because you as you stand are your death, if that makes any sense. You can't move to a new 'timeline' as you're death is necessarily presupposed by your life. There's no real contingency to whatever causal 'temporal' fabric you are, because it is it's own end.

The last post was a reply to the one above

...

Autistic crap with not a shred of evidence. Just because you can't know what path a particle will take and sometimes it may even take all of them doesn't mean the universe splits apart into possible scenario. I don't get where that leap of logic is.