You can achieve quantum immortality through this experiment: Play russian roulette with yourself for as many rounds as you like. In the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics a particle takes up every possible position of its wave function in parallel universes. Since you can only experience a universe in which you are alive you will experience those where the particles aligned for you to win russian roulette. Of course everyone else is more likely to experience a universe in which you are dead.
Now, with all the crises happening in the last century it is exceedingly likely that a world ending event happened. Since we cannot experience those universes where they did happen, the universe we do find ourselves in is getting more and more unlikely. More and more ridiculous.
Of course the most ridiculous event was the killing of Harambe, dooming us to the worst timeline possible.
Hello? Yes, I would like one survivorship bias, please, but could you add some physics and a little philosophy so it’s less obvious I have an untestable, maladaptive hypothesis? Oh, and coping mechanisms on half. Thanks!
In all seriousness, it’s a fun theory, but it’s unknowable at this point.
Okay, first of all, that’s clever and hilarious, so thank you.
Secondly, I put it to you that testing this either results in the end of personal knowledge entirely or else an outcome that can’t be peer-reviewed. I feel like that’s a pretty hard limit on the knowledge that can be gained here.
To test this you need an external observer who can register every quantum outcome and therefore can see/measure in every quantum reality.
How else would you get verifiable and reproducable data?
We are very far away from such a possibility, we don’t even know for sure if quantum theory (or which one of the many specific quantum theories) in general or the many worlds interpretation in speciality is even correct or not.
Now, with all the crises happening in the last century it is exceedingly likely that a world ending event happened. Since we cannot experience those universes where they did happen, the universe we do find ourselves in is getting more and more unlikely. More and more ridiculous.
I think there are 99 Dead Timelines where Vasily Arhkipov or Stannislav Petrov weren’t at work.
I would suggest that what they’re describing is a scientific theory which might be experimentally provable, based on some experiments that strongly point at the theory being true.
Whereas Buddhism is a religion. Or a philosophy, if you prefer.
I do recall Logic class being classified under philosophy, but it’s been a long time.
The difference is disprovability. Can you construct an experiment that would, if successful, disprove Buddhism? If not, it’s not science, and there is an enormous difference between Science and not-Science.
There have been thousands of philosophers, and dozens of philosophies which disagree on key points and are therefore incompatible. Can you reconcile Ayn Rand’s libertarianism and Buddhism? If not, how can you determine which is the correct way to live? If it boils down to personal choice, like whether blue is better than red, then it’s opinion and tells us nothing about reality except what you, the individual, prefer. Which is not very useful to more than a handful of people.
I understand your point, but please allow me to convey mine.
Can you construct an experiment that would, if successful, prove or disprove logic, without relying on logic as a means to determine the proof or disproof?
If it can’t be done, then it would seem like everything that has ever been proven relies on this assumption of the value of logic as a means to gain knowledge about the universe, which you know, is fine… but it hasn’t been proven or disproven, which imo would make it fall under the same categories you mention, as it would seem like what is a part of reality and what isn’t couldn’t be determined without using a fundamental axiom that is taken for granted.
Just like what you are describing in your third paragraph, which are all judgements of value which assume behaviors, beliefs and world views as a means to achieve a better society or life or rely on other unproveable assumptions of value that are impossible to prove, logic also seems to me like an assumption that is impossible to prove.
Not trying to convince you, though. I just wanted to explain my perspective.
I think we’re experiencing quantum immortality.
You can achieve quantum immortality through this experiment: Play russian roulette with yourself for as many rounds as you like. In the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics a particle takes up every possible position of its wave function in parallel universes. Since you can only experience a universe in which you are alive you will experience those where the particles aligned for you to win russian roulette. Of course everyone else is more likely to experience a universe in which you are dead.
Now, with all the crises happening in the last century it is exceedingly likely that a world ending event happened. Since we cannot experience those universes where they did happen, the universe we do find ourselves in is getting more and more unlikely. More and more ridiculous.
Of course the most ridiculous event was the killing of Harambe, dooming us to the worst timeline possible.
Hello? Yes, I would like one survivorship bias, please, but could you add some physics and a little philosophy so it’s less obvious I have an untestable, maladaptive hypothesis? Oh, and coping mechanisms on half. Thanks!
In all seriousness, it’s a fun theory, but it’s unknowable at this point.
It’s not unknowable, you just have to conduct enough tests personally to have a reasonable level of confidence.
You shouldn’t, but you could.
Okay, first of all, that’s clever and hilarious, so thank you.
Secondly, I put it to you that testing this either results in the end of personal knowledge entirely or else an outcome that can’t be peer-reviewed. I feel like that’s a pretty hard limit on the knowledge that can be gained here.
To test this you need an external observer who can register every quantum outcome and therefore can see/measure in every quantum reality. How else would you get verifiable and reproducable data?
We are very far away from such a possibility, we don’t even know for sure if quantum theory (or which one of the many specific quantum theories) in general or the many worlds interpretation in speciality is even correct or not.
It is a nice thought experiment though.
I think there are 99 Dead Timelines where Vasily Arhkipov or Stannislav Petrov weren’t at work.
What you are describing is buddhism with extra steps.
I would suggest that what they’re describing is a scientific theory which might be experimentally provable, based on some experiments that strongly point at the theory being true.
Whereas Buddhism is a religion. Or a philosophy, if you prefer.
more like polyverse with quantum foam.
Sounds delicious. You have the recipe?
I do prefer, and thank you, but ermm… does science not rely on philosophy? Is logic not philosophy?
I do recall Logic class being classified under philosophy, but it’s been a long time.
The difference is disprovability. Can you construct an experiment that would, if successful, disprove Buddhism? If not, it’s not science, and there is an enormous difference between Science and not-Science.
There have been thousands of philosophers, and dozens of philosophies which disagree on key points and are therefore incompatible. Can you reconcile Ayn Rand’s libertarianism and Buddhism? If not, how can you determine which is the correct way to live? If it boils down to personal choice, like whether blue is better than red, then it’s opinion and tells us nothing about reality except what you, the individual, prefer. Which is not very useful to more than a handful of people.
I understand your point, but please allow me to convey mine.
Can you construct an experiment that would, if successful, prove or disprove logic, without relying on logic as a means to determine the proof or disproof?
If it can’t be done, then it would seem like everything that has ever been proven relies on this assumption of the value of logic as a means to gain knowledge about the universe, which you know, is fine… but it hasn’t been proven or disproven, which imo would make it fall under the same categories you mention, as it would seem like what is a part of reality and what isn’t couldn’t be determined without using a fundamental axiom that is taken for granted.
Just like what you are describing in your third paragraph, which are all judgements of value which assume behaviors, beliefs and world views as a means to achieve a better society or life or rely on other unproveable assumptions of value that are impossible to prove, logic also seems to me like an assumption that is impossible to prove.
Not trying to convince you, though. I just wanted to explain my perspective.