Have you heard about Quantum Suicide??

Funerals mostly

>>17257428
>The gun clicks. She pulls the trigger again. Click. And again: click.

So the quark as spinning counter clockwise each time?

Basically each time the trigger is pulled, the universe will split in order to accommodate each outcome.

Why? Why should there be a universe where the result was the opposite? Why should there be any other universe but the one we find ourselves in?

>>17257469
The theory is that whenever something... ANYTHING happens the universe splits into one where it the thing happened and one where it did not.

It's kind of like Schrödinger's cat.... The cat is both alive and dead until you open the box to confirm the result. In your branch the cat is deceased but as soon as the box opens there is an alternate branch in which the cat greets you with a soft meow..... and in a third branch it jumps out of the box and scratches you.

As for why? We'll never know if it's actually true,let alone why.

>>17257499
Exactly

>>17257499
Actually, that's not true. The cat is either dead or alive, not both. There's only one possible outcome. Lack of knowledge on which outcome occurred does not translate into multitudes of universes for all possible events.
Want to argue? Prove me wrong by proving to me that another universe exists. But you can't, because it's all theoretical bullshit that's got everyone jerking off over a fucking idea with no proof.
The cat is either dead or alive, not both at the same time. Case closed.

>>17257534
Do you realize he said "Theory"

>>17257547
Theory nullified for lack of evidence. Schrodinger can go fuck himself.

>>17257554
Agreed.
This thread is stupid.

>>17257534
Quite the litteralist.

Perhaps things aren't so black and white.

File: cara-delevingne-annie-clark-red-lipstick.jpg (802KB, 2000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

802KB, 2000x3000px

>>17257428
HOW CAN WE KILL THIS BITCH?

>>17257570
dumb question, that bitch can die like any other person but what is the point in killing someone that everyone dickrides if it has no benefits for you?

>>17257570
Sure, we can percive her death as mere observers.

But her true fate is unknown at the end of the day.

>>17257566
WHERE IS THE PROOF, YOU DIRTY CUM-EATER?

>>17257576
SHE'S TURNING CARA INTO A LESBIANESE THAT'S REASON FOR ALL MALEKIND TO WANT HER DEAD

there's a saint vincent song that's "Birth in Reverse", is there a universe where this bitch was never born?

>>17257469
>Why should there be a universe where the result was the opposite
this follows from the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, but there's of course no reason for it to be true, there are other possible interpretations.
In addition let's assume that the many worlds interpretation is a fundamental truth about how the universe operates. There is no reason to believe that the human consciousness can traverse both universes and choose which one to be in.
>>17257534
Not true, bell's theorem implies this interpretation of quantum mechanics (the cat is either dead or alive, we just have no knowledge until we check) is incorrect. But there exist many other interpretations of QM that don't involve multiple universes.

>>17257591
>But her true fate is unknown at the end of the day.
The fuck... like Shrodingers Cat?

But I mean If he wanted the cat dead why didn't Shrodinger just shot the box full of holes and then threw it off a tall building, I can't deal with all this uncertainty, I want the bitch dead.

>>17257597
JESUS WHO THE FUCK CARES? cara aint that important to me. You all need to start worrying about yourselves and avoid this celebrity nonsense they are all just distractions. OH YES CARA PUSSY AWWW SHE IS LEZBIAN NOOOW well boo fucking hoo

>>17257599
Bell can shove his goddamn theorem up his ass too. I don't give a shit what it implies.

Until you can PROVE that the cat is alive and dead AT THE SAME FUCKING TIME, it's all bullshit.

And you can't. You know why? Because the states of being alive and dead are mutually exclusive. It is EITHER alive or dead. Not both.
And while it would be really cool to theorize about parallel universes and shit, it's all bullshit too because again, lack of knowledge on a cat's status does not necessitate another universe.
Possibility=/=existence. Theory=bullshit.

>>17257617
Anon I...

>>17257623
Damn right.
Kill a cat put it in a box. WHat now bitches is it alive or dead? DOes it have fetus in it while dead or not? Is there a live fetus while its dead inside or not?!?! fucking no logic into those shitty ass theories

Maybe you can't get rid of people.

What if consciousness can't be physically ended, it only moves and grows. We don't remember our birth because it would probably be too traumatic. So a past life is probably out of the question

We're all just the same thing really anyway. Reincarnation isn't so crazy.

Remember, this is hypothetical stuff. No need to get mad, we're just bouncing ideas and thoughts at each other or perhaps ourselves

File: ShrodingersCat.png (56KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 600x450px

>>17257534
You don't seem to understand what the experiment is really about. Infact neither of you are understanding the concept, at least not completely.

The cat is suppose to be between a state of being dead and alive, basically a transcendent state. It has to do more with an observer than it does the universe splitting off from each other.

Like when the cat is in the box no one actually knows whether it's alive or not, an observer or a middle ground needs to be reached in order to find out. So he takes the lid off only to, either find him still purring his head off, not moving whatsoever; limp as a phone book.

Basically only an outside perspective can declare you dead or alive. You can't do that yourself, and the whole time that you're unable to do that. You'll be in a state of limbo, floating around the edges of being alive and dead. It's interesting, but a pretty simple concept.

>>17257623
Nothingness is all potential yet to be manifested.

Can't you see that nothing is everything

>>17257636
>We're all just the same thing really anyway. Reincarnation isn't so crazy.
>Remember, this is hypothetical stuff. No need to get mad, we're just bouncing ideas and thoughts at each other or perhaps ourselves
Yes ok but as far as I am concerned this is about how we kill the saint vincent girl in this particular time space continuum. Now we can make it a thought experiment as long as by the end she's dead.

>>17257653
Ok.

I'm not sure how we will kill her. You'd need to prevent the universe splitting for every action we take. No matter what we do, an opposite universe will exist.

>>17257428
Why st Vincent ?

>>17257623
>It is EITHER alive or dead
Can you prove that alive and not alive are mutually exclusive, ie. that (x)(D (x) ⇔ ¬A(x)) "x is dead if and only if x is not alive"?
No, you can't because it isn't true. For instance a rock is not alive but it is not dead either.

This is some moving goalposts shit, why should I have to prove that the cat is dead and alive if you aren't required to prove that dead and alive are mutually exclusive states?

So technically she cannot die. Ever.

Nothing ever ends. It only reverberates.

>>17257693
she can die. jfk died didnt he?

>>17257705
in this timeline he died. in another timeline he probably survived.

>>17257679
It was the only blank shooting gif of a persons head I happened to have on my phone.

Made me think about Quantum Suicide, and hey presto, thread where everyone wants to kill St Vincent

>>17257676
>I'm not sure how we will kill her. You'd need to prevent the universe splitting for every action we take. No matter what we do, an opposite universe will exist.
YES so check this out

I shoot her and I shoot you at the same time (we can swap roles if you're not cool with dying) Then as the universe splits the You that is alive in kill the She that is alive. And now I know what you're gonna say, that's just gonna make the unvier split again. No problem friend, because in the split where she survives the two shots (or both or guns dont work) I choke her to death. we basically create an infinite loop of ways to kill her matching every split.

>>17257693
Fortunately there's a easy way to find out, just put a gun to your head and pull the trigger a few times, technically the gun while being a macroscopic object still has a wavefunction even if it acts more or less like a macroscopic object, so presumably you'll end up in the universe where all the particles in the bullet tunneled out of the gun or something. whatever you do you can't die so just go for it.

>>17257715
What about the universe where me and you never meet, our orchestrated attack to wipe St Vincent from every universe would fail :(

The plan can't even work without this initial discussion, that Perhaps never even took place

>>17257623
This isn't a theory. Its been confirmed for a while now. Its dependent upon probability waves.

While the box the cat is in is closed to any outside observers, the cat exists in a quantum state. Meaning that his probability wave is evenly distributed leaving him in 2 states which is dead and alive.
Similar to where the electron is in an atom. (high school chemistry only teaches you the Bohr atom, because shells, orbitals, p-shells, d-shells, f-shells and the 3 dimensional shapes they actually take is more complex) Contrary to the Bohr atom, in the real world the electrons of the atom don't orbit in a circle. There is only probability of where and which orbitals the electrons are lying in and Schrödinger's equations shows the highest likely areas. Once you observe a quality of the electron however (speed or spin) the probability wave collapses and the electron stops moving. Similarly when you open the box, the cat is now either dead or alive since observation collapses the probability wave.

>>17257744
>The plan can't even work without this initial discussion, that Perhaps never even took place
Dude that's it, if this is happening it's because along the quantic equation of the universe this was somehow meant to be. Perhaps we already killed her, and this is just we collectively remembering it.
But that doesn't excuse us from careful planning and proper execution.

>>17257759
Damn, you are determined to kill St Vincent lol

There's a universe where she kills me bruh

Bet she's not counting on me being a ninja in that universe tho

>>17257804
Haha, that's the spirit.

Do all outcomes have the same probability? Or are there less probable outcomes that aren't being considered?

>>17257641
Or you could kick the box, listen for a mewl, and if you hear it, the damn cat's alive.

The spin of the particle is "observed" by the detecting device. You opening or closing the box has nothing to do with it. This is a confusion with the word "observe" that for some reason people keep perpetuating.

>>17257433
/thread

>>17257841
I should add, it is first "observed" by the detecting device only if it interacts with nothing else. Its first interaction will be the "observation" that collapses the waveform.

Schrodigner's cat was not meant to be a serious illustration, but a criticism of a certain interpretation of quantum behaviour.

>>17257433
Im drunk, my friend is drunk, going home, too wasted to drive, open 4chan, see this, you made our day, you made our night u tru frend anon fuck we love u, 10 minutes laughing or more...

>>17257855
No it doesn't matter what its first interaction is. The wave collapses once measured/observed (in ur example hitting the detector).

If it was whatever the first interaction is that collapsed the wave, the waves wouldn't exist in the first place because there are quantum interactions going on simultaneously.

TL;DR Program a robot to kill you every time you don't win the lottery.

>>17257914
The first external reaction will collapse the waveform because, during interaction, the motion of the particle is "measured" by the interacting element.

>>17257499
>>17257534
>>17257641

None of you fuckers know what you're talking about. The cat is just an analogy, for fuck's sake; a real cat obviously can only be either dead or alive, not both at the same time. However, when it comes to subatomic particles, it's been PROVEN (not gonna bother to give any source, do your own research) that they exist in an indeterminate state up until an observer measures their condition.

That's 100% true, but it's also ONLY true when it comes to subatomic particles. Now shut your fucking mouths, you fucking pretentious assholes.

was this to do with the laser beam test on the powers of observation? when observed it sent a straight beam, when not the machine recorded it sending two beams or some shit like that.

>>17258036
>observer
Again, this has an extremely specific meaning in modern quantum physics. Observer does not necessarily mean there is a human or a conciousness or a reading.

>>17257750

Yes, but isn't this because measuring the electron interferes with it? I guess you could say, forces the probability electron field to collapse to a definite point.

If we're going with the cat analogy, it'd be like sucking the air out of the 10 cubic liter box and finding only 8 cubic liters of oxygen...oh, well I guess he WAS alive...

>>17257681
Yeah sure, let me solve that for you real quick. Drive down to your local funeral home. You see that fucker everyone's crying over? He's dead. Is he alive? No. Are you alive? Yes? Then you're not dead.

Has there ever been a proven instance of any fucking living creature, in all of recorded history, EVER being dead and alive at the same time? No.

In conclusion, fuck you.

>>17258036
>>17258078
How can something exist in an indeterminate state? It either is or it isn't. How can there be an in-between, unless it's transient from one status to another?

>>17257623
>While the box the cat is in is closed to any outside observers, the cat exists in a quantum state. Meaning that his probability wave is evenly distributed leaving him in 2 states which is dead and alive.
>when you open the box, the cat is now either dead or alive since observation collapses the probability wave.

Wow. You're a fucking dumbass. The cat was ALWAYS dead or alive. It was never in both states at the same time. That is literally impossible. Your entire theory is almost as stupid as you, but you're more stupid, because you advocate in favor of it.

Just from YOUR looking at it, the cat doesn't just quit its magic purgatoric state and decide to stick to one. it's either fucking DEAD, or fucking ALIVE. It cannot and never will be both at once.

In conclusion, fuck you.

>>17258419

So, look at the double slit experiment (slits unobserved). What passes through the slits is an electromagnetic/matter field (depending on what was shot at the slits). The field is an area where the possibility of matter/photon propagation exists. Not until it's measured or some of the energy is deposited is an actual particle existent.

The cat metaphor is just trying to reclaim this phenomenon.

>>17258451
Meant for >>17257750

>>17258452
I don't understand but I also don't care enough to try and understand. I do appreciate you trying to explain to me, though.

You guys forgot the atomic particle driven death dealer going off at a semi-random time.

>>17258419
>something
No, not some"thing". A "thing" you can hold in your hand. It is macroscopic. Entanglemen and superposition are exclusively quantum phenomena, which can have macroscopic effects but the macroscopic itself cannot exhibit those properties. Schrodigner's Cat is meant to illustrate that. A cat cannot simultaneously be alive and dead the way a quantum particle can be rotating in multiple directions simultaneously.

>Basically each time the trigger is pulled, the universe will split in order to accommodate each outcome.

>The gun won't fire

Yes, assuming that a parallel universe is created, the gun will fire in one universe. The possibilty of either universe being the gun shot one is equal.

>>17258451
I'm sorry if you've never taken a college chemistry class there's really nothing I can do if you fail to understand this.

Yes the cat in the box is an analogy, to esay the cat is always either dead or alive without checking is a false assumption.
Again yes this is an analogy which is why we say the cat (LIKE AN ELECTRON) is dead AND alive (LIKE AN ELECTRON IS IN MULTIPLE PLACES AROUND AN ATOMIC NUCLEUS AT ONCE) until our observation/measurement collapses their quantum state.

If you can't understand this, I'm sorry I wasn't able to help.

>>17258010
Again no. Two interacting particles don't measure/observe each other's states, that would violate the entire basis of quantum uncertainty.

>>17258036
Ask any physicist in the world who has studied quantum theory and they'll all give you the same response. "it's extremely unlikely that we would ever see it happen because on a bigger scale quantum effects become negligible. But it doesn't mean its impossible."
Every physics professor I've had in the past 4 years. The fact is that's the reason the analogy works and they still use it.

>>17258036

This. The cat experiment is just an analogy to help people understand what's going on at the quantum level.

"Observer" does not mean conscious being. It basically means ANY interaction which requires a resolution of the state.

File: 1451951623743.jpg (109KB, 541x530px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 541x530px

I read about this when I was probably 15... 8 years ago during my pot smoking existential crisis stages of life having all of these queations and no answers or understanding of life.

I thought ok... Suppose this is true, what happens at old age?Old age is an inevitable death. Its always fascinated me and I think about it every time I have a near death experience or anything where something could go horribly wrong but the planets align and it works perfectly. Almost like divine intervention.

Now according to this theory and my beleifs, Im in a "universe" where we can increase our life expectancy with technology. I may have a chance to live well past 100 years old. Not to mention the possibility of transferring my conciousness out of this body into another... synthetic or biologically human...

So what are the chances that I was born at this exact time where I may have a chance to be immortal... Is it possible that this truly is a simulation and the universe starts and ends with my observations or conciousness? Reality does warp to my will in weird ways sometimes and I get what I envisioned...

Anyways enough of that, Ill still always play it safe as if this is the only life Ive got and will preserve it as well as possible, only taking smart calculated risks.

>>17257563
disagreed the thread was great, the anons are stupid

>itt edgy teen who reads maddoc takes on first year science major

quantum spin sin't literally how something spins or "rotates". And I have no idea where you get the idea of the universe splitting, thats just horseshit.

>>17257428
>the universe will split in order to accommodate each outcome.
actually it's the other way *around*

>>17257499

This again. I wish retards stopped talking about Schroedinger's cat like they understand what he meant.

Schroedinger's cat was meant to explain that what we have in quantum mechanic right now makes no sense, so it means we don't have a proper explanation.

>>17257428
You should do this experiment yourself. I did it and it works.

>>17257428

To the woman's perspective, this is possible. After all, she will never know she has died. The only way she can know is if she survives. For all we know, the first time she pulls the trigger actually kills her to us, but to her she's in another reality where it hasn't.

>>17257641
Anyone who thinks you can't tell whether a cat in a box is alive or dead has never had a cat in a box. Get too close to it and boom you've got a paw with claws coming out at you.

>>17257499
>The theory is that whenever something... ANYTHING happens the universe splits into one where it the thing happened and one where it did not.
It's not a theory - it's an interpretation of quantum mechanics. It's hence unprovable.
>>17257554
He was pointing out the fallacy of applying quantum reasoning to macroscopic objects.
>>17257641
It isn't just that you don't know if it's dead or alive, the actual state of the cat is |dead> + |alive>. This is more subtle than you'd think; this state is very different to |dead> - |alive>. You even have states like even 2+3i|dead> + 7-i|alive>.
>>17257428
Quarks don't exist in isolation - you'd have a hard time measuring its spin.
you might be aware of this, but particles aren't actually spinning clockwise or anticlockwise. You measure the spin along a direction, and that is either + or -.

File: Higgs-Mass-MetaStability.svg.png (56KB, 1024x731px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1024x731px

>The gun won't fire
>Basically each time the trigger is pulled, the universe will split in order to accommodate each outcome

I'm sure you're aware of this and just forgot about it while writing this (It is a complex subject,) but if every outcome occurs, than the outcome where the gun fires occurs.

Moreover, remove time from your perspective. That is, you have a particle, and it can be in every location it will ever be in at the same time - it forms a 'hair ball' where it's loops around various centers of gravity merge into a solid structure.

There isn't a chance that the particle will be here or there - it inevitably will be here and there, at the same time, forever.

>What do you think happens after death?

Death is a part of the cycle of the particles composing a human body. Your death and birth are permanent fixtures of space which exist forever. Every moment of your life exists and is replayed, forever.

From the perspective of the human dying, it's like different parts of a tape being read - once you get past the part of the tape featuring your life, it's as if that life had never happened, since memory as we experience it on Earth is a feature of a particular part of the tape. If a part of the tape isn't being read, it can't be experienced.

I believe that we're all a single consciousness which experiences different parts of the tape as it moves along it. As it experiences your life, it identifies completely with your body and perceptions, and forgets all other lifes.

File: 1444604779883.gif (2MB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x500px

>>17259302

>So what are the chances that I was born at this exact time where I may have a chance to be immortal

Out of roughly 125 billion people to ever exist, you're one of the few billion you'll live into the middle 21st century. Most people have been born and died without any possibility of immortality.

Reproduction rates are going down, so fewer and fewer people, if trends continue, will exist in the future to take advantage of this technology. Unless an enormous baby boom occurs once we start colonizing space, there'll only be a few billion people who ever enjoy the technology.

Also, different strains of space humanity may lose their immortality - so even if we have a baby boom in space, not all of those babies will get the opportunity to be immortal.

Something else to think about is seniority - you're going to be older than anyone born after you, and lots of people born before you will die before becoming immortal. You belong to the first generation of immortals - the literal kings and queens of humanity, who'll rule over the species for the rest of it's existence. You'll be able to threaten everyone younger by saying 'In my day, people died - you young people have never known true despair,' and they'll be forced to shut up because their lifes have been nothing but rainbows and unicorns. Any you never, ever have to step aside for them - you'll always be the Great, Great, Great grandfather/mother that everyone has to respect, but you won't be ugly and wrinkly.

There has to be a god - this is too good to be true. And god is probably a post-mortal man, who through wisdom and intelligence, harnessed science to create his own physical universe. We can all be like him, and many of us will.

>>17257469
antropic theory, the universe is formed by and forms itself for human observation.
the only universe that she could be in by remaining alive and continuing observation is the one where none of her shots fired.
>people think quantum irregularites are due to improper understanding.
waveform and particles fight eachother.

>>17259720
>From the perspective of the human dying, it's like different parts of a tape being read - once you get past the part of the tape featuring your life, it's as if that life had never happened, since memory as we experience it on Earth is a feature of a particular part of the tape. If a part of the tape isn't being read, it can't be experienced.
its more like.
we are a particle, floating in an empty vacuum,
both are indescribable.
between lives, we swoosh through the "fourth dimension" to move our particle from the point our life left it to the starting point of our next life.
I CAN FEEL THE WARP TAKING OVER ME
>I believe that we're all a single consciousness which experiences different parts of the tape as it moves along it. As it experiences your life, it identifies completely with your body and perceptions, and forgets all other life's.
i believe we are all here to make our own tape as well.
i don't identify with my body and perception.
i AM my body and perception.
this is a distinction i have made, for better or worse.
although i refuse to forget my other lives, i am here now.
>>17259845
>>17259626
with the strength of my soul heart and mind.
i will reach forever.

>>17259329
This made me lol

>>17257428
>implying that works besides the theory

>>17257840
still an outside force "observing"

St Vincent's so hot

>>17259483
The universe will collapse in order to avoid both outcomes?

I quite this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itt0rALeHE8

Am I on /mu/

>>17260581
no, the outcome will either follow what's preplanned for the universe, or, if it is meaningless for the Divine plan (most of the time), your unbiased subconscious decision aka free will. either way there will be only one outcome. but the more the series of your personal outcomes diverse from the Divine plan, the stronger the correction will be which will once fall upon you when it won't be you to decide on the outcome.

>>17263259
>preplanned for the universe
Do you have even the most primitive grasp of the problem complexity of such an idea?

>>17263266
it's perfectly simple, I assure you

>>17263293
Right, well, until you're written an algorithm to do it autonomously, you're nothing but a spec of reality.

>>17257428
She should move out of Night Springs.

>>17263296
>until you've written

>>17257566
Or maybe they Are?
Everything in my experience tells me that they are, and no one has given me a reason to even consider the possibility that it isnt.

>>17263339
That's because there isn't one. Quantum physics never makes any predictions because it isn't really a field of physics. Even the experts revert to primitive philosophy when debating it among themselves. If science has an expiration date, it expired the moment quantum subjectivity arose.