Comment on You'll never see it coming
Scubus@sh.itjust.works 2 months agoI thought it was the self observation principle?
Comment on You'll never see it coming
Scubus@sh.itjust.works 2 months agoI thought it was the self observation principle?
ilinamorato@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I’ve never heard of that name for it, though the “observation selection” principle might be what you’re thinking of. They’re synonyms.
Scubus@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
You are correct.Notably, I don’t believe it’s unfalsifiable, its just fundamentally true. You cant observe yourself in any reality where you are incapable of onserving yourself.
By applying both that and the many worlds hypothesis, the idea of quantum immortality comes up, and thats a real mind bender. Its also a way to verifiably prove many worlds accurate(afaik the only way)
Basically (very basically), anything that can happen, does. Its simply that each possible action happens in a seperate time stream, and each new possible action results in said time streams splitting into two realities; one where the action happened, and one where it did not.
But by the anthropic principle, you will only ever find yourself in a reality where you can observe yourself.
Hence, if you set up an expirement such that if a single atom decays in a chunk of uranium you die, the odds are stacked almost infinitely in favor of you dying, and one of two things will happen.
In the case many worlds is true, despite all the odds, there will be a universe in which you survive, and due to the self observation principle, that will always be the one you find yourself in. You obviously cant observe yourself in any reality where you died.
In the case that many worlds is false, you simply die. You still cant observe yourself in that reality, so for you reality simply stops.
This means that if it is physically possible for you to survive something, from your perspective(assuming many eorkds is true) you will always survive. That is the idea behind quantum immortality.
The downside is that others are still able to observe you dying. So in the vast majority of realities, they observe you die and label the expiriment inconclusive. In the reality in which you live, it could just be a massive statistical fluke. I suppose you could run the expiriment again, but youd suffer the same issues as the first time, where in almost every case, they witness you die and deem it inconclusive. After having repeated this twice and yet you still find yourself in the reality where you survived, id say thats basically proof that many worlds is accurate, but only that reality out of the uncountably high number of realities stemming from this expiriment would have evidence. In all the others you just die.
To reiterate though, assuming many worlds is accurate, the expiriment carries no risk to you. Due to the anthropic principle, you will always find yourself in the reality in which you survive.
ilinamorato@lemmy.world 2 months ago
As you note, it’s the only logically-consistent framework through which to view the world we live in. But are there other ways in which the universe could’ve formed that we might be able to falsify it?
Imagine two universes, A and B. They’re entirely disconnected and independent from one another; no matter or energy can flow in either direction, except that through some exotic process, a small window exists in universe A through which universe B can be observed without affecting it in any way (Heisenbergs HATE this!). Universe A is just as our own is, including our existence, with the single exception of this window. In universe B, however, the laws of physics do not permit carbon atoms to form in stars, so no sentient life has ever formed.
In those universes, then, the Anthropic Principle would be falsified; as the residents of Universe A could observe a universe in which they could not have arisen.
Or consider a Boltzmann Brain (or a simulated universe). Were we to discover that our existence was of either nature, that too would falsify the Anthropic Principle, as we are not actually observing a universe.
Anyway. It’s not falsifiable in our reality, as far as we can tell. But we can imagine ways in which it could be falsifiable.
pcalau12i@lemmygrad.ml 2 months ago
MWI only somewhat makes sense (it still doesn’t make much sense) if you assume the “branches” cannot communicate with each other after decoherence occurs. “Quantum immortality” mysticism assumes somehow your cognitive functions can hop between decoherent branches where you are still alive if they cease in a particular branch. It is self-contradictory. There is nothing in the mathematical model that would predict this and there is no mechanism to explain how it could occur.
It also has a problem similar to reincarnation mysticism. If MWI is correct (it’s not), then there would be an infinite number of other decoherent branches containing other “yous.” Which “you” would your consciousness hop into when you die, assuming this even does occur (it doesn’t)? It makes zero sense.