1
$\begingroup$

Anthropic principle, at least in laymen explanations that I have encountered so far, sounds something like "the physical universe suits us exceptionally well because among all the possibilities we, the observers, tautologically encounter the one that can support us."

I was wondering whether this principle can be applied to specific observers. That is, suppose that Shroedinger performs his thought experiment with himself, rather than his cat. Would the anthropic principle imply from Shroedinger's viewpoint that he would always survive, at least according to many-worlds interpretation?

How about this setting, assuming many-worlds interpretation: two people decided to divorce by proceeding with their lives as window&widower in separate universes. They create a setup similar with Shroedingers, except that 2 boxes have been created in such a way that a person in exactly one of them would get killed, depending how a certain superposition collapses. Then the unhappy couple enters the chambers. Does the anthropic principle imply that each of them would experience the exiting the chamber as the sole surviving spouse?

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Terminology issue: the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is usually not identified as a "multiverse", with the latter term being reserved for different regions of a single space-time. That aside, yes, MWI implies both of your conclusions for those two thought experiments. The first example, of Schroedinger's cat from the cat's point of view, is usually called the quantum suicide thought experiment. $\endgroup$ – user27578 Mar 1 '14 at 23:05
  • $\begingroup$ @dgh I think that would qualify as an interesting answer if you summarised quantum suicide, which the OP, and likely many others seems not to have heard of. $\endgroup$ – WetSavannaAnimal Mar 2 '14 at 3:34
  • $\begingroup$ It's not a particularly long or technical Wikipedia article, and the summary is essentially what OP already said. $\endgroup$ – user27578 Mar 2 '14 at 3:58
  • $\begingroup$ @dgh: thanks for the link, that answer my questions. $\endgroup$ – Michael Mar 2 '14 at 4:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.