You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Luke_A_Somers comments on timeless quantum immortality - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: Algernoq 06 December 2015 04:14AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (52)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 08 December 2015 09:50:24PM 4 points [-]

That isn't the relationship between decoherence and observation.

Decoherence events are when a quantum system splits into multiple parts that are no longer dynamically accessible to each other. At this point, they are in different worlds.

Observation events have to be decoherence events. Observation has no other role in quantum mechanics other than that in order to observe, you must decohere.

So, whether or not you observe things, you are in some world of dynamically mutually accessible states, and this will evolve into many dynamically inaccessible components with or without your observing it. By the time you've observed anything, it's way too late to get from one to another.

Comment author: Algernoq 09 December 2015 09:20:21AM 0 points [-]

In that case, it seems like Quantum Immortality doesn't work.

And here I thought I was safe. Dammit.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 09 December 2015 05:15:23PM 1 point [-]

Well, the nice form you described here doesn't work. The kind of lousy usual form does, with the usual caveats.

Comment author: Algernoq 11 December 2015 06:44:34AM *  0 points [-]

I agree provided the many-worlds interpretation is correct, which seems likely.

If the consciousness-causes-collapse interpretation is correct (which seems less likely), then the special form I described might still work. But I can't count on it.