I am Immortal.

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Mind
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I was on a fine website the other day, and I read a theory that intrigued me. I'd like to read more on it, as I'm certain this was only a brief overview, but it basically stated this.

"The consciousness of a person can not allow itself to be in a universe in which it doesn't exist, therefore, you will never die. Imagine you're playing Russian Roulette. You pull the trigger. Nothing happens. You pull it again. Nothing. You pull it four more times. Nothing has happened. You're shocked. The gun should've gone off. What really happened is that each time you pulled the trigger, a new universe split off. In one universe, the gun has gone off, and you're dead. But in another, you're alive. Your consciousness will not allow you to die, so your conscious will remain fixated in the universe where you live. The world may crumble around you, but you will stay alive. Although you may be old and withering, you will live. Always. You are, in essence, immortal."

Does anyone have any idea of what this theory is called? I'm not sure, and I'd really love to know.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,456 • Replies: 49

No top replies

@Upward Thrust,

There are several different schools of thought on the concept of parallel reality.

John Archibald Wheeler proposed the Oscillatory Universe theory.

Hugh Everet proposed the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) in quantum physics.

Max Tegmark proposed the Infinite Ergodic Universe theory as well as the Ultimate Ensemble Hypothesis.

There is also M-Theory which is a branch of Brane Cosmology that proposes a multiverse of parallel dimensions.

There is also the Anthropic Principle and the ever-popular Chaos Theory.

Finally, there is all sorts of speculation around the CMB Cold Spot near the constellation Eridanus. Physicist-Cosmologist Dr. Laura Mersini earlier this year claimed that this was proof of a parallel universe.

Researching these people and their theories will likely lead you in the right direction.

-ITL-

1 Reply

@IntoTheLight,

self-conscious, conceive the "I," and possess levels of abstract reasoning.

So you have three types of monads, the uppermost with self-consciousness and the ability to persist through time (like the animal monad but not the entelechy). There are numerous reasoning's and support for the theory in his treatise MonodologyThat very point is where I think this is a hybrid Leibnizian theory.

0 Replies

@Upward Thrust,

Upward Thrust;105454 wrote:

I was on a fine website the other day, and I read a theory that intrigued me. I'd like to read more on it, as I'm certain this was only a brief overview, but it basically stated this.

"The consciousness of a person can not allow itself to be in a universe in which it doesn't exist, therefore, you will never die. Imagine you're playing Russian Roulette. You pull the trigger. Nothing happens. You pull it again. Nothing. You pull it four more times. Nothing has happened. You're shocked. The gun should've gone off. What really happened is that each time you pulled the trigger, a new universe split off. In one universe, the gun has gone off, and you're dead. But in another, you're alive. Your consciousness will not allow you to die, so your conscious will remain fixated in the universe where you live. The world may crumble around you, but you will stay alive. Although you may be old and withering, you will live. Always. You are, in essence, immortal."

Does anyone have any idea of what this theory is called? I'm not sure, and I'd really love to know.

It sounds like some form of idealism. Perhaps the theory could be framed like this:

P1. When an event with mutiple outcomes occurs, a set of parralel universes emerge, each manifesting one of the possible outcomes.

P2. The conscious mind cannot inhabit a universe in which it does not exist.

P3. Whenever an event occurs with multiple outcomes occurs, at least one of which results in the destruction of a conscious mind, at least one parralel universe will emerge in which the mind survives.

C4. The conscious mind cannot be destroyed.

P2 seems to be intuitively true, however P1 and P3 are both highly disputable.

P1 can be challenged, firstly, on the grounds of determinism: every event has only one outcome, and therefore no parralel universes will emerge, only the inevitably resultant universe will emerge alone. The Russian Roulette idea is a poor analogy, since the bullet is certainly in one of the chambers of the gun and the possibility of it firing with each pull of the trigger is not random. Of course, this could be challenged with appeal to quantum uncertainty, provided the bullet could genuinely exist in some quantum wave state in every chamber at once. Secondly, parralel universe theory is disputed for a number of other reasons which would have to be addressed for P1 to be accepted as uncontroversial.

P3 could simply be challenged by demonstration of cases where there are no possible outcomes in which the mind survives. Suppose every chamber in the gun is loaded (or, Darwin Awards-style, the gun is automatic) - then there can be no outcome but death as long as the trigger is pulled and the gun's pointing at the brain which sustains the mind.

2 Replies

@buffalobill90,

This is Robert Lanza's Biocentrism.

Biocentrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is piece written by him via Huffington Post:

Robert Lanza, M.D.: Does Death Exist? New Theory Says 'No'

As is was first reading it I instantly dismissed is as another new age psuedo-scientific article drunk on "quantum physics", written by someone that probably had no formal scientific education of any kind. After reading Lanza's background and accomplishments in stem cell research I was taken aback. He has an extensive history in science and made vast contributions to stem cell research. Not that his background makes his theory true, it's just nice to see something so fringe as Biocentrism coming from someone of such a solid scientific background.

0 Replies

@Upward Thrust,

Upward Thrust;105454 wrote:

I was on a fine website the other day, and I read a theory that intrigued me. I'd like to read more on it, as I'm certain this was only a brief overview, but it basically stated this.

"The consciousness of a person can not allow itself to be in a universe in which it doesn't exist, therefore, you will never die. Imagine you're playing Russian Roulette. You pull the trigger. Nothing happens. You pull it again. Nothing. You pull it four more times. Nothing has happened. You're shocked. The gun should've gone off. What really happened is that each time you pulled the trigger, a new universe split off. In one universe, the gun has gone off, and you're dead. But in another, you're alive. Your consciousness will not allow you to die, so your conscious will remain fixated in the universe where you live. The world may crumble around you, but you will stay alive. Although you may be old and withering, you will live. Always. You are, in essence, immortal."

Does anyone have any idea of what this theory is called? I'm not sure, and I'd really love to know.

I think every idiot who believes such nonsense should play Russian roulette as long as they are able, and as soon as they are able. That way, they will not pass on their genes to the next generation, and people may become more intelligent on average.

If they really believe such nonsense, they should have no objection to doing it. I say, their actions speak louder than words, and the fools who say such things are really dishonest, as they refuse to act on their claimed belief. They should put up or shut up.

---------- Post added 12-30-2009 at 02:37 PM ----------

Bill Hicks;112629 wrote:

This is Robert Lanza's Biocentrism.

Biocentrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is piece written by him via Huffington Post:

Robert Lanza, M.D.: Does Death Exist? New Theory Says 'No'

As is was first reading it I instantly dismissed is as another new age psuedo-scientific article drunk on "quantum physics", written by someone that probably had no formal scientific education of any kind. After reading Lanza's background and accomplishments in stem cell research I was taken aback. He has an extensive history in science and made vast contributions to stem cell research. Not that his background makes his theory true, it's just nice to see something so fringe as Biocentrism coming from someone of such a solid scientific background. [emphasis added]

I find it depressing, not "nice" at all, as it proves that being accomplished does not prevent one from being a moron.

1 Reply

@Pyrrho,

Many-worlds interpretation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[/COLOR]
Many-worlds is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the wavefunction, but denies the reality of wavefunction collapse. It is also known as MWI, the relative state formulation, theory of the universal wavefunction, parallel universes, many-universes interpretation or just many worlds.

The original relative state formulation is due to Hugh Everett [2][3] who formulated it in 1957. Later, this formulation was popularized and renamed many-worlds by Bryce Seligman DeWitt in the 1960s and '70s.[1][4][5][6]
Proponents argue that many-worlds reconciles how we can perceive non-deterministic events, such as the random decay of a radioactive atom, with the deterministic equations of quantum physics. Prior to many-worlds, reality had been viewed as a single "world-line". Many-worlds, rather, views reality as a many-branched tree where every possible quantum outcome is realised.

In many-worlds, the subjective appearance of wavefunction collapse is explained by the mechanism of quantum decoherence. By decoherence, many-worlds claims to resolve all of the correlation paradoxes of quantum theory, such as the EPR paradox [7][8] and ,[1] since every possible outcome of every event defines or exists in its own "history" or "world". In layman's terms, there is a very large-perhaps infinite[9]-number of universes, and everything that could possibly have happened in our past, but didn't, has occurred in the past of some other universe or universes.

The decoherence approach to interpreting quantum theory has been further explored and developed[10][11][12] becoming quite popular, taken as a class overall. MWI is one of many Multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy. It is currently considered a mainstream interpretation along with the other

0 Replies

@buffalobill90,

buffalobill90;110336 wrote:

P3 could simply be challenged by demonstration of cases where there are no possible outcomes in which the mind survives. Suppose every chamber in the gun is loaded (or, Darwin Awards-style, the gun is automatic) - then there can be no outcome but death as long as the trigger is pulled and the gun's pointing at the brain which sustains the mind.

I began to write a big story so to speak in this reply, and then later realized it would be better off as a new thread, as it branches off so many times into different tangents.

I'll just say what sparked the initial response:

The gun could get jammed.

1 Reply

@JeffreyEly,

Nothing ever ceases to exist in my opinion, neither do we, what we call the mind or soul the spiritual or ethereal part of our being, just like everything else in the universe, evolves over time changing form like the energy it is.

We have always existed and will continue to exist forever

0 Replies

@Upward Thrust,

Upward Thrust;105454 wrote:

Your consciousness will not allow you to die, so your conscious will remain fixated in the universe where you live.

What if you die in your sleep?

0 Replies

@Upward Thrust,

But is the consciousness of anyone in the universe? The universe is a space-time continuum in which our bodies exist, but our consciousnesses seem not to exist in this space-time continuum. They seem to exist in time, yes, but not in the extended dimensions of space. In fact, no element of the human mind seems to have any spatial properties.

Samm

3 Replies

@SammDickens,

Samm;134887 wrote:

But is the consciousness of anyone in the universe? The universe is a space-time continuum in which our bodies exist, but our consciousnesses seem not to exist in this space-time continuum. They seem to exist in time, yes, but not in the extended dimensions of space. In fact, no element of the human mind seems to have any spatial properties.

Samm

It seems to me that consciousness is just another way to say space....we posit a self-concept for social reasons, but this self-concept is an imposition of number upon pure transcendental space. Consciousness is neither object nor space but always experienced by humans as both. It requires a difficult inference to grasp this. Hence the mystery.

It should also be noted that the "self" is dependent upon memory, which is conceptual, and desire, which is conceptual. This is how human or meaningful time is imposed on space. Man is the concept penetrating space. The cross above the infinity of continuous space and the minus sign of pure nous, pure subjectivity, which is the maker of distinctions.

0 Replies

@Upward Thrust,

Upward Thrust;105454 wrote:

I was on a fine website the other day, and I read a theory that intrigued me. I'd like to read more on it, as I'm certain this was only a brief overview, but it basically stated this.

"The consciousness of a person can not allow itself to be in a universe in which it doesn't exist, therefore, you will never die. Imagine you're playing Russian Roulette. You pull the trigger. Nothing happens. You pull it again. Nothing. You pull it four more times. Nothing has happened. You're shocked. The gun should've gone off. What really happened is that each time you pulled the trigger, a new universe split off. In one universe, the gun has gone off, and you're dead. But in another, you're alive. Your consciousness will not allow you to die, so your conscious will remain fixated in the universe where you live. The world may crumble around you, but you will stay alive. Although you may be old and withering, you will live. Always. You are, in essence, immortal."

Does anyone have any idea of what this theory is called? I'm not sure, and I'd really love to know.

What makes you think there is something special to consciousness? I mean we put a special meaning on the word, but besides that how does the consciousness not "allow you to die"? Would you consider a monkey or dolphin to be immortal?

If someone else watches you pull the trigger, does nothing still happen? I would venture to guess that 99% of the time when someone gets shot in the brain by someone else they die. What is the thing they shot if not a person?

It is of course a tempting idea, but there is absolutely no justification for it. The multi-verse theory could care less who lives or dies. If you die in this universe, you're dead. There may be other versions of "you" out there, but they are not you. Think of it this way: A scientist figures out a way to completely reproduce your mental states in a cloned body of you. As soon as that other body is conscious it is another person. It is experiencing things from another perspective. If that "clone" shot you, you would cease to exist.

0 Replies

@SammDickens,

Samm;134887 wrote:

But is the consciousness of anyone in the universe? The universe is a space-time continuum in which our bodies exist, but our consciousnesses seem not to exist in this space-time continuum. They seem to exist in time, yes, but not in the extended dimensions of space. In fact, no element of the human mind seems to have any spatial properties.

Samm

Did you write "immortal" or "immoral"?

"Sweet Helen, make me immortal (immoral?) with a kiss" Christopher Marlowe.

1 Reply

@SammDickens,

Samm;134887 wrote:

But is the consciousness of anyone in the universe? The universe is a space-time continuum in which our bodies exist, but our consciousnesses seem not to exist in this space-time continuum. They seem to exist in time, yes, but not in the extended dimensions of space. In fact, no element of the human mind seems to have any spatial properties.

Samm

So if I took my brain out of my skull I would still be able to type?

Let me try that now... o;laikneflkandof;knadl;fkgnag;nskg *death*

2 Replies

@Scottydamion,

Scottydamion;134923 wrote:

So if I took my brain out of my skull I would still be able to type?

Let me try that now... o;laikneflkandof;knadl;fkgnag;nskg *death*

Now you are being flippant. Have you been eating beans? Remember what Pythagoras said, "Eat no beans".

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;134920 wrote:

Did you write "immortal" or "immoral"?

"Sweet Helen, make me immortal (immoral?) with a kiss" Christopher Marlowe.

kennethamy;134928 wrote:

Now you are being flippant. Have you been eating beans? Remember what Pythagoras said, "Eat no beans".

It would seem I'm not the only one eating beans... were yours refried or BBQ? I prefer uncooked beans, good for one's constitution, whatever that means.

1 Reply

@Scottydamion,

Scottydamion;134930 wrote:

It would seem I'm not the only one eating beans... were yours refried or BBQ? I prefer uncooked beans, good for one's constitution, whatever that means.

I eat no beans, or Logos (Greek for legumes). I stick to steak.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;134936 wrote:

I eat no beans, or Logos (Greek for legumes). I stick to steak.

Well, that explains a lot.

rebecca

0 Replies

@Scottydamion,

Scottydamion;134923 wrote:

So if I took my brain out of my skull I would still be able to type?

Let me try that now... o;laikneflkandof;knadl;fkgnag;nskg *death*

I don't know. But I invite you to give it a try. :-)
Samm

2 Replies

I am Immortal.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know