All right, so get ready because today we're going to be exploring something pretty wild
and that is quantum immortality.
Immortality.
Yeah, could we actually live forever?
It's a big question.
It's a huge question and we have this article sent in and wow, this is a total head trip.
It is.
It really is.
We're diving deep into a concept suggesting that because of quantum mechanics, death might
not be the end that we think it is.
It's really fascinating how this ties into the many worlds interpretation of quantum
mechanics.
Yeah, the MWI.
It's a concept that I've heard more and more physicists kind of talking about and taking
seriously.
Yeah, and it makes you really kind of question everything.
It does.
You thought you knew about reality.
So let's break this down.
Okay.
So the article starts with kind of the basics of quantum mechanics.
And you know me, I'm a sucker for the double slit experiment.
Of course.
But it still just blows my mind that a single electron can act like a wave and a particle,
depending on if someone is watching it or not.
Yeah, it demonstrates that the act of observation can change how a quantum system.
It's not just that we don't know what's going on until we look the act of observation.
It shapes reality.
It shapes reality at the quantum level.
So okay, so that's already pretty wild.
But how does this connect to us living forever and these parallel universes that we keep
hearing about?
That's where the many worlds interpretation or the MWI comes in.
And basically the idea is that every time a quantum measurement is made like in the double
slit experiment, we're figuring out which slit the electron went through.
Reality splits.
So there's one reality where it goes through slit A. One where it goes through slit B.
Okay.
And so on.
So is it kind of like every choice, every possibility is playing out somewhere?
Are we talking like infinite versions of ourselves living out every possible scenario?
Pretty much.
Whoa.
Yeah, it really challenges our understanding of cause and effect, the nature of choice itself.
The article actually mentioned this app called Universe Splitter.
Have you heard of this?
I have, yeah.
It claims to use quantum measurements to help you make decisions.
It's a kind of fun.
Yeah.
It'll silly.
We need to visualize.
But it's fun.
It's like a fun illustration of like how these everyday choices we're making could be
branching out into different realities.
And the thing is, is that these branches don't just like suddenly appear.
Okay.
There's a process called decoherence.
Decoherence.
And it's more gradual.
So they kind of untangle in their time.
Yeah.
Yeah, they sort of gradually untangle themselves.
So these realities are kind of diverging, becoming distinct based on these choices.
Based on the choices made within them.
So okay.
So if these branches are separating and can't interact, what are the implications for the
choices we make?
Yeah.
Does it even matter?
If every outcome is playing out somewhere anyway.
That's a huge question.
Yeah.
You know, and it gets at the heart of free will versus determinism.
Right.
You know, if everything that can happen does happen.
Yeah.
Where does that leave our agency?
Does knowing about the MWI empower us or does it make us feel powerless?
That's a great question.
I think I need a minute to process all this.
But the article then jumps into one of the most famous and maybe slightly unsettling
thought experiments in physics.
Quantum Russian roulette.
It's a very powerful illustration of these concepts.
Right.
So the idea is you have a gun that is hooked up to a quantum event that determines whether
or not it fires.
Okay.
And then you point it at your head.
Oh boy.
And you pull the trigger.
Oh yeah.
And so the idea is that in the MWI, there's always going to be at least one branch where
the gun doesn't fire.
So you keep playing and at least in one reality you're just surviving.
Yeah.
Okay.
Indefinitely.
This sounds like a recipe for disaster.
It does.
But before anyone gets any ideas, let's be clear, this is just a thought experiment.
Absolutely.
This is not something to try at home.
Don't try this at home.
Please.
And the article does point out that there are some serious flaws with applying this to
real life situations.
Yeah.
Max Tegmark, who is a physicist who's popularized this thought experiment, he actually outlined
three specific criteria.
Okay.
For quantum immortality to even theoretically work.
Okay.
What are those?
Yeah.
So the first one is the event has to rely on a genuinely random quantum event.
Okay.
The second is death or at least unconsciousness needs to happen faster than you can perceive
it.
So like instantaneously?
Yeah.
Instantaneously basically.
Okay.
And the third is that it has to kill you.
It can't just injure you.
Not just injure you.
Okay.
So those criteria are very...
The very specific...
The specific and the article even mentions that most ways we die in the real world don't
happen instantaneously.
They do.
Like even if there's a branch where you survive a heart attack, there's no guarantee you're
not dealing with some serious consequences.
Right.
Yeah.
You might survive, but you're going to have...
It's going to have some brain damage.
Some brain damage.
Right.
Or something.
Exactly.
That's it.
So the idea of quantum immortality at least as it relates to our everyday lives, it starts
to kind of fall apart when you apply it to how things actually work.
Right.
So how did this idea even gain traction?
Where did this connection between quantum mechanics and immortality come from?
That's a good question.
Well, the article mentions this philosopher, David Lewis.
Oh, yeah.
And he kind of took this quantum Russian roulette idea and applied it to the concept of immortality
in general.
Right.
So the universe is fundamentally quantum.
Any cause of death could theoretically have a branch where you survive.
Even if it's incredibly unlikely.
Yeah.
He was essentially suggesting that we're constantly branching into realities where we survive.
He can have the probability is like...
Right.
Even if it's minuscule.
Super tiny.
Yeah.
So are we saying there's a tiny chance a speeding car could quantum tunnel right through me?
That's the ideal.
Without a scratch?
Yeah, it's a very...Constantly dodging bullets in some alternate realities.
It's a mind-boggling concept.
But the article does point out that there are some problems with just...
Right.
...focusing on the survival branches.
Okay.
You know, because doesn't that mean that there are...
Right.
...countless branches where things go wrong?
That's a great point.
And if so, shouldn't we be concerned about those two?
Yeah.
It seems a little too convenient to just ignore...
Right.
...all the branches where things don't go our way.
Exactly.
The article kind of dives into this with something called the corrected intensity rule.
It sounds very complex.
It is a bit of a complex idea.
But how does that fit into all this?
So it's a way of trying to reconcile the 100% probability of all outcomes in the MWI with
the fact that we only experience one.
Right.
So Lewis basically argued that the branches where we die...
Okay.
...should essentially be ignored.
Ignored.
Because death is oblivion, as he put it.
Okay.
So you can't experience those branches so they don't really count.
Hmm.
I don't know.
It sounds like a little bit like a heads I win, tails it doesn't count kind of thing.
It does a little bit.
That doesn't seem very fair.
And the article does mention that this corrected intensity rule is pretty controversial.
It is very controversial, yeah.
Other physicists and philosophers have challenged this idea.
They argue that just because we can't experience something...
Right.
...doesn't mean it's not real.
Right.
It doesn't directly experience your life.
Right.
But that doesn't mean that your experience isn't real.
Okay.
That makes sense.
Right.
So maybe the corrected intensity rule isn't the answer.
Yeah.
But even if we kind of ignore that rule for a second.
Okay.
Does our everyday experience even support this idea of quantum immortality?
Right.
You know what I mean?
Like, do we...
That's where things get really complicated.
Yeah.
You know, remember Tagmark's criteria.
Right.
One about death needing to be faster than you can perceive it.
Yeah.
Well, the article presents some pretty thought provoking counterarguments to that.
Okay.
Like what?
So for example, physicist Anthony Aguirre argues that we experience reduced consciousness
all the time.
Oh, yeah.
Like when we're sleeping or under anesthesia.
Right.
But we don't assume that we're only conscious in the branches where we stay awake.
Right.
We wake up and life continues.
So if we apply that to death, why would...
Why would that be any different?
Yeah, why would the specific time scale of dying be the thing that decides which branches
we experience?
It sounds like the idea of quantum immortality hinges on defining death as the instant you
lose consciousness.
Right.
Rather than the process of dying itself.
Which is kind of a little bit.
Which is a very specific and kind of strange way to look at it.
Yeah.
And it leads to some pretty uncomfortable implications.
It does.
Because even David Lewis, who we were talking about before.
Right.
Who kind of advocated for quantum immortality.
Acknowledge that it could lead to this sort of eternal torment scenario.
Right.
Where you might survive every near-death experience.
Yeah.
But potentially at the cost of like accumulating.
Accumulating injuries.
All these injuries and suffering.
Right.
Along the way.
Instead of blissful eternal life, we're talking about a potentially endless series of near-death
experiences.
Which leads to far cry.
Yeah.
With consequence.
From the immortality that most people imagine.
It's not fun.
It's not.
So.
Okay.
So we've got philosophical issues.
Right.
We've got this time frame issue.
Yeah.
Anything else casting doubt on this idea?
Well beyond just the arguments and the statistics.
Okay.
The article also explores some interesting analogies.
Okay.
That I think really highlight just how complicated this whole concept is.
Okay.
One that I found particularly fascinating was the Star Trek transporter example.
Oh yeah.
That one.
Yeah.
Imagine stepping into a transporter.
Right.
That makes two copies of you.
Right.
Instead of just rematerializing you.
Exactly.
In one place.
Yeah.
So you technically survive.
Right.
But which version is the real you.
Right.
And what happens if one of those copies doesn't make it?
It really forces you to confront.
Yeah.
The question of what defines you.
Right.
And how much of our sense of self is tied to this single continuous experience.
Right.
And what happens when that continuity is broken?
That's deep.
Or if it's unclear which version of you is the original.
It's like we're trying to understand this quantum concept through the lens of our own
consciousness.
It doesn't quite fit.
It doesn't really fit.
Yeah.
And that kind of leads us to what I think is the most fascinating part of this whole
discussion.
Okay.
Which is this paradox of selfhood.
Oh.
In the MWI.
Right.
How do we even define self?
Right.
In a reality where every possible outcome is happening.
So how does the self even exist if there are infinite copies of me out there all making
different choices?
Yeah.
That's the big question.
The article presents a few different perspectives on this.
Okay.
Brian Green suggests that we might need to expand our definition of self.
Okay.
To include all of our counterparts across the multiverse.
Like a giant interconnected network of consciousness spanning all these realities.
Yeah.
Kind of like a.
It's a lot to wrap my head around.
It's a huge idea.
Yeah.
And it gets even wilder.
The article also brings up Lev Aidman's argument.
Okay.
He suggests that while beings identical to us might exist in other branches.
Okay.
There's still only one I.
Okay.
The one experiencing this particular reality right now.
Okay.
It's not about a collective self.
Right.
But rather the unique consciousness.
Right.
We experience in this specific branch.
Exactly.
What about all those other versions of ourselves?
Are they less real?
Yeah.
That gets into some deep philosophical waters.
Yeah.
But the article goes even further.
It presents David Wallace's perspective.
Okay.
Which suggests that the MWI might actually challenge the very notion of individual selfhood as
we understand it.
Whoa.
So the idea that there's a single unique me might be an illusion.
It might be.
Yeah.
It really kind of.
It's seriously blinded by mind right now.
It really shakes things up.
Yeah.
It highlights how profoundly the MWI can change our understanding of who we are and how we
exist in the universe.
So okay.
After going through all this, where do we land?
Right.
Are we all secretly immortal?
Should we change how we live knowing there might be countless versions of us out there
making different choices?
The article kind of wraps up by revisiting this Cuban Missile Crisis example.
Oh yeah.
And it makes, you know, a single decision potentially save the world from nuclear war.
Right.
And it makes you wonder, you know, do we only exist in the branches where humanity survives?
That's both terrifying and kind of reassuring.
It is.
At the same time.
Yeah.
Like maybe there's some kind of cosmic selection pressure.
Right.
That favors the continued existence of conscious beings.
Right.
Even if it means like sacrificing countless other possibilities.
Yeah.
It's an intriguing thought.
But you know, it's important to remember that.
Right.
We've identified several logical and scientific inconsistencies with the idea of quantum immortality.
Yeah.
So the takeaway here isn't so much about whether we literally live forever.
Right.
But rather the profound questions that the MWI raises.
Right.
About our place in the universe and the nature of reality itself.
Yeah.
Even if we kind of set aside this whole immortality thing.
Right.
The MWI still suggests that somewhere out there, versions of us are experiencing this
vast spectrum of possibilities.
Right.
You know, maybe there's a branch where I'm a world famous chef or you've finally written
that best selling novel.
Exactly.
You've always dreamed of.
It's a very thought provoking idea.
It is.
It's, you know, even if we can't interact with those other branches.
Right.
Just knowing that they might exist.
Yeah.
Can inspire us to kind of embrace the possibilities within our own lives.
Right.
And I find it that, you know, even seemingly small choices can lead to drastically different
outcomes.
I love that a multiverse full of potential.
Like a cosmic cheering section.
Exactly.
For all the different paths we could take.
That's a great way to put it.
So what's the key takeaway for our listeners today?
I think the biggest takeaway is that quantum immortality while a captivating concept.
Right.
Remains highly speculative.
It's a powerful thought experiment that really pushes us to the edge of our understanding
of reality.
Yeah.
Consciousness and the self.
Yeah.
And even if the immortality part doesn't hold up.
Right.
Exploring these ideas helps us appreciate just how much we still don't know about the universe
and our place within it.
Absolutely.
We've covered a lot today.
Quantum mechanics, multiple universes, the nature of self.
It's a lot to process.
But before we wrap up, I have one final thought to leave you with.
Okay.
To accept the many worlds interpretation, does knowing that other versions of us are out
there living different lives, change how you view your own choices and experiences?
Does it make you feel more free knowing that every possibility is playing out somewhere?
Or does it make you feel less significant knowing that your choices might not be as unique
as you thought?
We'd love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks for joining us on this deep dive into the mind-blowing world of quantum immortality.
Until next time, keep questioning, keep exploring, and stay curious.