0
$\begingroup$

I understand the multiple worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics as follows: Any time an event happens, all of the possible outcomes take place ("split the universe")

If I then think about a person, who consists of great many particles, that person every moment is "cloned" into great many "copies".

So, wouldn't there be a path through time, where a person (or maybe rather a descendant copy of that person), which lives "forever"?

PS. If this question is based on incorrect assumptions, please do let me know and give me a chance to make a correction or withdraw the question completely.

EDIT:

The way I understand it, I'll illustrate with a simplified example. Say I am a point particle. At any one moment in time, I can take 2 states. Then time progression would be a binary tree, where any "descendant" of me in the branches would be different from the root of the tree (original me).

And as the comments suggested, this is actually the same question as "can I keep flipping heads forever".

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
10
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Similar things have been considered, but I strongly suggest not trying the experiment yourself. $\endgroup$
    – user10851
    Commented Mar 13, 2015 at 6:07
  • $\begingroup$ Just curious, are you assuming time passes at the same rate in each universe? We,at least I, don't know what time actually is. Until I do, I can't be sure the universes don't evolve at different speeds. How would that affect things.? $\endgroup$
    – user74893
    Commented Mar 13, 2015 at 6:24
  • $\begingroup$ @irishphysics probably not at all for this sort of experiment, as it depends on the same concept as 'is there a universe / timeline in which i keep getting heads for a coin flip?' $\endgroup$
    – Xeren Narcy
    Commented Mar 13, 2015 at 6:27
  • $\begingroup$ I find it difficult to get the (wrong) picture out of my head that I would split once , and then lead a parallel life. But I would keep on changing so copy is a very misleading word to me. It always implies a kind of once off split, which the MWI says is wrong, I will keep splitting so there is really always going to be only one me . $\endgroup$
    – user74893
    Commented Mar 13, 2015 at 6:33
  • $\begingroup$ @xerennarcy I asked about the MWI as soon as I joined last week and was told there is no maths formalism at all behind the MWI so I kinda gave up on it. Not sure how you can see my questions but if you can, read the answer I got. It convinced me to drop it. I have no problem with the physical splitting part at all, but no maths behind it kills it for me. 6.46 Irish time now and guessing that I won't think anything through properly for a while. $\endgroup$
    – user74893
    Commented Mar 13, 2015 at 6:50

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
0
$\begingroup$

Let me take my idea of what i think are your assumptions as far as I can.

From your question "The way I understand it, I'll illustrate with a simplified example. Say I am a point particle. At any one moment in time, I can take 2 states. Then time progression would be a binary tree, where any "descendant" of me in the branches would be different from the root of the tree (original me).

And as the comments suggested, this is actually the same question as "can I keep flipping heads forever"."

You want to achieve immortality by using the splitting process of the MWI to preserve your body. Each copy must remain "you". So each time there is a split in the conditions of the particles that make your body , it must preserve the conditions exactly before the split (so the copy is still "you".) This is my (maybe wrong) extension of the idea of getting "heads" in each toss. A continual set of heads means, in effect, no change and no change to me, means no time passes.

Now if I'm wrong here in my understanding of your explanation, I apologise and what follows is suspect.

What i will be trying to say is that the appearance of a series of heads appearing in our world is equivalent to a series of frozen time universes withinin the multiverse.

If no time passes, (my extension to the multiverse of your unending series heads, implying no change) how will you develop in the first place?. To get from cot to zimmerframe, your body needs to change, but to preserve the conditions immediately before the split to keep the copy the same "you", (you want to keep getting heads) means no change, so no human development even starts. There is to me, a complete paradox here already.

Now say you start splitting at age 25. (and you (or your copy, sorry) still want to live forever. Again, this paradox arises. If all splits preserve the exact conditions before they happened , then a series of universes frozen in time will be produced.

this is probably covered a million times before on this forum, i havn't looked (and I am still not sure that i have understood your assumptions correctly).

I don't think you could achieve immortality by using your assumption But I do believe its a very good question for following the logic/ paradoxes inherent in the MWI idea.

Anyway even if you started splitting at age 25, a set of frozen in time universes ain't much fun to live in.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. I guess I didn't word my question well enough. I didn't mean that each "me" must stay identical. Each "me" would be a modified version of the original me. $\endgroup$
    – Anton
    Commented Mar 13, 2015 at 18:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Andrey then, I absolutely completely guess, by the second law of thermodynamics (if it applies in each universe), the modications would build up in each universe and entropy would increase, more disorder each time and that would reduce the chances of a longer life. great question, though, i learned a lot from trying to think it through regards and thanks $\endgroup$
    – user74893
    Commented Mar 13, 2015 at 18:50
  • $\begingroup$ "the appearance of a series of heads appearing in our world is equivalent to a series of frozen time universes withinin the multiverse." - this sounds very strange to me. $\endgroup$
    – innisfree
    Commented Mar 13, 2015 at 23:03
  • $\begingroup$ yes i agree, it does sounds very weird but I was referring to a coin heads sequence mentioned in the article, not any other type of head. I misunderstood the assumption the OP was making and the goal the OP wanted to confirm or refute. If you read the answer again in that light, and then read the comments below it, maybe it will make more sense to you. If it does not make sense i will try to explain it better. Also please bear in mind that i may not yet fully understand the distinction between "a series of universes" and a multiverse, if that is the part of the quote that concerns you. $\endgroup$
    – user74893
    Commented Mar 13, 2015 at 23:42
  • $\begingroup$ @ innisfree in point of fact, rereading my answer I realise that, combined with the comment I previously sent you, I find I that I cannot give a better explanation than it already contains, because I lack sufficient knowledge about the subject. The article contains a series of assumptions of mine that I would need confirmed, either by yourself (which would be the fastest method if you specialise in this area and are willing to help me improve the answer) or by research and (a lot) more study and time on my part. regards and thanks $\endgroup$
    – user74893
    Commented Mar 14, 2015 at 0:06

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.