I was stumbling again, and I found this extremly interesting article. The premisis is that, because of the existance of infinite parallel universes, there is at least one in which you do not die. Ever. And basically, when you cease to exist in one universe, you still exist in all the others, including the ones in which you are immortal. I dont know exactly what this does for your consciousness, if when you die in one universe your consciousness jumps to another of yourself... *shrug* interesting anyways.

http://www.qarl.com/menu/musements/immortality/

wow, how do you find all this awsome stuff?

StumbleUpon http://www.stumbleupon.com/

Yea... I saw that notion once as an argument against the view of there being nothingness after death. My points against it:

1. The "you" in a different universe wouldn't be the same "you." It'd be a completely different person. Even if the two copies have the same genes and everything, there'd be two separate consciousnesses.

2. The many-worlds view of quantum mechanics is just one interpretation out of many. It's not been fully accepted, and I don't accept it.

3. Consciousness, being solely the product of the interactions between a person's neurons (in my view), is bound by the neurons, which are bound to just one universe.


-----Edit-----

I just noticed that the page already accepts that the many-worlds interpretation isn't set in stone.


-----Edit2-----

Now that I've actually read the page, I have more ideas to refute.
Not by String Theory, where the notion of the "particle" is completely replaced by waves. And isn't the two-slits experiment normally done with electrons?

They take advantage of quantum superpositions, which is a part of quantum mechanics, and not confined to the many-worlds interpretation. And we don't really have quantum computing yet. Unless you can say that a tiny array of like 12 quantum dots is a supercomputer.

The person writing that article did not seem to be very...legitimate, and needed some grammar and spelling lessons.

Has anyone ever considered the possibility of three parallel universes - Reality (the world you and I live in), Heaven, and Hell? It's the easiest way to somewhat scientifically explain Heaven/Hell.

Woo! Go spaceman. Someone who has the almost the same points of view that I do. I have considered it. Heck, I believe it.

The website layout wasn't wonderful either. It got 6 errors on the W3C markup validator.

Agreed, although there would be one universe in which everything happened EXACTLY as it did in the one in which you died, only in this universe you didnt die. You would still be the same person, only you died.

The idea of multiple universes assumes that every time something happens, the universe in which it happens "splits", and in one of the new universes the event occurs, and in the others it occurs differently. Now, as far as I'm concerned, it is impossible for an event to occur any other way than the way it occurs. Every event is completly dependant on an event or events previous to it, and that each of these previous events are dependant on events previous to them, etc. And that an event can be traced back through an infinitly long series of previous events, on back to the big bang, and beyond. Therefore, there is no "chance" involved in anything, everything happens exactly as it happens, and cannot happen any differently in any other universe given the same circumstances.

Now, this is assuming that radioactive decay, an event which at this point in time there is no known cause, has a cause that we just havnt discovered yet. If there really isnt a cause for radioactive decay, and it really is random, then my argument is flawed, and multiple universes would be possible.

Well, it boils down to whether or not quarks are bound to a universe.


No, it's done with a light source, and as we know light=photons.

Quantum mechanics describes strange "waveform" things involved in radioactive decay, and other non-deterministic concepts. Like the Uncertainty principle. Then again, none of this really means that it's random. Really just that it seems random.

I don't see how that really matters, since it's the structure and not the actual particles that count.

I did some research and the experiment can be done with either light or electrons.

Then the idea of multiple universes is severly flawed.

Well in superstring theory, the idea is that there are an infinite amount of possible quarks, because of the infinite range of frequency of a string, so if the quark is unique, it's unique properties would carry over into any other universe in which it "exists." Perhaps this is where unique consiousness is based?

This is analogous to questioning Stephen Hawking's theories based upon his ability to speak.

Interesting thought. But how would that arise from biology?
Also, the range of a string's frequency is infinite, but it's countably infinite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quanta (third paragraph)
The energy in something increases in steps. At such a tiny level as strings in string theory, the steps would be relatively large. And the more energy is put into it, the less stable it'd become. But then again, that's assuming that this idea in quantum mechanics applies to strings in string theory, which I'm not so sure of.


-----Edit-----

As it turns out, Wikipedia has an article about this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_immortality
And... I see that there's no questioning about whether or not consciousness can transcend universes.


-----Edit2------

Problem is in the process of being fixed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quantum_...scend_universes

Maybe the immortal one will be the last one,or maybe this is wrong and we'll go to heaven.