3 ms·

In quantum suicide, your means of death must be both the result of a quantum superposition, and 100% lethal... otherwise you might just be in this universe, hor

In quantum suicide, your means of death must be both the result of a quantum superposition, and 100% lethal... otherwise you might just be in this universe, horribly maimed. Now, a nuke on your lap with the trigger hooked up to sense the decay (or not) of a given radioactive material is probably valid, but global nuclear war? No way. Odds of surviving all out nuclear war Are pretty lousy, but decidedly non-zero.

newen 9y ago
But the number of people living in a non-nuclear apocalypse world will be much higher than the number of people living in a nuclear apocalypse world (assuming the probability of a nuclear apocalypse is less than like 90% or something). Your death in a nuclear apocalypose doesn't necessarily have to be a 100% probable for you to experience this non-nuclear apocalypse world with some high probability.
- QAPereo 9y ago
  That’s not a superposition or probabilities, and not really subject to this thought experiment. What you’re describing sounds more like quantum immortality, not related to suicide. The problem either way is that you only get to make your own observations... maybe that means you die, and in a branch you don’t. You don’t experience that branch though, if it exists. You don’t have any awareness of other branches now, right? The problem is... why and how does your consciousness “move” to another reality? What is the physical mechanism that has you living and not a twin in another universe who isn’t really you... after all, you died when the bombs fell. Most Of all though it’s important to remember that like Schrodinger’s cat this is a thought experiment meant To illustrate certain problems or features of quantum mechanics. It is an analogy or metaphor for a system dominated by quantum effects, like a single radioactive atom with a 50-50 chance of decaying in the next second. These thought experiments don’t really suggest alive/dead cats, or immortals, they highlight how quantum systems differ from Classical ones. These ideas have led to various interpretations of QM, such as The Copenhagen Interpretarion (wavefunction collapse) and MWI (multiple universe). None of those interpretations are very rigorous, and may well be indicative of gaps in understanding as much as anything else.

newen 9y ago

But the number of people living in a non-nuclear apocalypse world will be much higher than the number of people living in a nuclear apocalypse world (assuming the probability of a nuclear apocalypse is less than like 90% or something). Your death in a nuclear apocalypose doesn't necessarily have to be a 100% probable for you to experience this non-nuclear apocalypse world with some high probability.

QAPereo 9y ago
That’s not a superposition or probabilities, and not really subject to this thought experiment. What you’re describing sounds more like quantum immortality, not related to suicide. The problem either way is that you only get to make your own observations... maybe that means you die, and in a branch you don’t. You don’t experience that branch though, if it exists. You don’t have any awareness of other branches now, right? The problem is... why and how does your consciousness “move” to another reality? What is the physical mechanism that has you living and not a twin in another universe who isn’t really you... after all, you died when the bombs fell. Most Of all though it’s important to remember that like Schrodinger’s cat this is a thought experiment meant To illustrate certain problems or features of quantum mechanics. It is an analogy or metaphor for a system dominated by quantum effects, like a single radioactive atom with a 50-50 chance of decaying in the next second. These thought experiments don’t really suggest alive/dead cats, or immortals, they highlight how quantum systems differ from Classical ones. These ideas have led to various interpretations of QM, such as The Copenhagen Interpretarion (wavefunction collapse) and MWI (multiple universe). None of those interpretations are very rigorous, and may well be indicative of gaps in understanding as much as anything else.