Infinite parallel universe is nonsensical to me. It is an unprovable metaphysical contraption that offers nothing of value besides copium for the less fortunate and the gullible among us.
Also, it has nothing to do with luck as being discussed here.
I think you can prove Many Worlds Interpretation correct for yourself. You do the Schrödinger's cat thing on yourself. If MWI is correct, you'll observe yourself surviving indefinitely even if every second there is a 50% chance determined by a quantum event that the trap triggers and kills you. I'm not sure this would convince anyone else even if you open the door after 6 hours and come out alive, and regardless the vast, vast majority of total observers would conclude the experiment failed since in most universes you'd be dead. But you'd either know the theory is true or just be dead. Not really worth the risk but I think it is testable.
I'm confused as to how this proves anything. Are you suggesting that the only explanation that something with small probability has happened, is that there are many worlds in which this has not happen?
No you don't have to observe other worlds, and you wouldn't be able to "prove" anything to anyone else for all sorts of practical reasons. But you'd know for yourself that there is virtually no chance that MWI is wrong if you survive for 6 hours (21,600 iterations at 50% probably each), and you could go as long as you want to further drive that probability down.
I'm not sure that answers my confusion. Even if I am just proving it to myself, why does the occurrence of a not probable event prove the existence of many worlds?
Not trying to be pedantic here, but you did say, "I think you can prove Many Worlds Interpretation correct for yourself."
Anyway, my point is that, I can't see how to go from "I observed something with small probability happening to me" to the conclusion that "MWI is correct". There is no logical connection between the two statements as far as I can discern.
If MWI is correct, every deadly quantum event in this experiment is a branch in which two different universes exist: one with you, and one without you. Since you can only observe the ones in which you still live, it seems to you that this event stops happening with deadly certainty as soon as you are in the box. When you leave the box, it starts happening again. Repeat as many times as you like, the results are the same. Put someone else in the box, they inevitably die in a few seconds. What is the other possible explanation?
No, this is not supported by the MWI. There's no clause in there about your consciousness getting magically teleported to worlds in which you survive. There's science-fiction with that as the premise, but it's fiction.
A lot of people smarter than me think it is supported by MWI. Max Tegmark, for example wrote about this in Our Mathematical Universe[1]. No "teleportation" is required, you simply aren't observing the universes in which you die. So there is a selection bias.
edit: Note that I do not agree - as some do - that you can extrapolate from this that MWI means we are all immortal. The "continuous fade" argument made by Tegmark is quite convincing, as are other objections to this idea.
There's no clause in there about your consciousness getting magically teleported to worlds in which you survive.
You are absolutely correct - there is nothing about the MWI that implies such a thing. Such a thing is implied by consciousness itself.
Here's a thought experiment. You implement a conscious system on a computer. After letting it run for a year, you interrupt the software but save all of its state. After waiting 20 years, you restart the software from the same point on a completely different computer running an emulator for the old system.
The consciousness, whose reference of time is entirely independent of the real world, does not "feel" the 20 year pause. It "magically teleports" to the new computer.
Comments
Infinite parallel universe is nonsensical to me. It is an unprovable metaphysical contraption that offers nothing of value besides copium for the less fortunate and the gullible among us.
Also, it has nothing to do with luck as being discussed here.
I think you can prove Many Worlds Interpretation correct for yourself. You do the Schrödinger's cat thing on yourself. If MWI is correct, you'll observe yourself surviving indefinitely even if every second there is a 50% chance determined by a quantum event that the trap triggers and kills you. I'm not sure this would convince anyone else even if you open the door after 6 hours and come out alive, and regardless the vast, vast majority of total observers would conclude the experiment failed since in most universes you'd be dead. But you'd either know the theory is true or just be dead. Not really worth the risk but I think it is testable.
I'm confused as to how this proves anything. Are you suggesting that the only explanation that something with small probability has happened, is that there are many worlds in which this has not happen?
No you don't have to observe other worlds, and you wouldn't be able to "prove" anything to anyone else for all sorts of practical reasons. But you'd know for yourself that there is virtually no chance that MWI is wrong if you survive for 6 hours (21,600 iterations at 50% probably each), and you could go as long as you want to further drive that probability down.
I'm not sure that answers my confusion. Even if I am just proving it to myself, why does the occurrence of a not probable event prove the existence of many worlds?
All I said is that it’s testable, not that it is proven.
Not trying to be pedantic here, but you did say, "I think you can prove Many Worlds Interpretation correct for yourself."
Anyway, my point is that, I can't see how to go from "I observed something with small probability happening to me" to the conclusion that "MWI is correct". There is no logical connection between the two statements as far as I can discern.
If MWI is correct, every deadly quantum event in this experiment is a branch in which two different universes exist: one with you, and one without you. Since you can only observe the ones in which you still live, it seems to you that this event stops happening with deadly certainty as soon as you are in the box. When you leave the box, it starts happening again. Repeat as many times as you like, the results are the same. Put someone else in the box, they inevitably die in a few seconds. What is the other possible explanation?
Jesus Christ.
No, this is not supported by the MWI. There's no clause in there about your consciousness getting magically teleported to worlds in which you survive. There's science-fiction with that as the premise, but it's fiction.
A lot of people smarter than me think it is supported by MWI. Max Tegmark, for example wrote about this in Our Mathematical Universe[1]. No "teleportation" is required, you simply aren't observing the universes in which you die. So there is a selection bias.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortalit...
edit: Note that I do not agree - as some do - that you can extrapolate from this that MWI means we are all immortal. The "continuous fade" argument made by Tegmark is quite convincing, as are other objections to this idea.
You are absolutely correct - there is nothing about the MWI that implies such a thing. Such a thing is implied by consciousness itself.
Here's a thought experiment. You implement a conscious system on a computer. After letting it run for a year, you interrupt the software but save all of its state. After waiting 20 years, you restart the software from the same point on a completely different computer running an emulator for the old system.
The consciousness, whose reference of time is entirely independent of the real world, does not "feel" the 20 year pause. It "magically teleports" to the new computer.