Prediction 163

Duration 20 years (02004-02024)

“You are immortal”

Predictor
Brendan McAuliffe

Challenger
TBA

Vote

When you vote, your name, today's date and who you are siding with will be added to this prediction's permanent record. Please sign in to vote.

side with predictor
side with challenger
 

72 people (42%)

100 people (58%)

details »

Discuss & Share

Add your voice to a conversation with the bettors:

Join the discussion »

Bookmark this bet, and share it with friends:

McAuliffe’s Argument

The ' many worlds ' hypothesis of quantum mechanics is correct and ' quantum immortality ' obtains.

If that's the case, you will live, no matter how unlikely that is, esstenially forever. You're going to live unitl ' machine transcendence ' is achieved and you are ' uploaded ' into a computer and become essentially immortal ( or whatever form it may take, The Second Coming happens, The Singularity, The Omega point, etc )

I may die in your world and you may die in mine, but you will live forever in yours. But it's possible that after this transcendence that You will not be the same You that You are Yous to.
>

Challenge McAuliffe!

Sign in to challenge Brendan McAuliffe to a bet on this prediction!

Join the Discussion

A wonderful dream



A wonderful dream that fails to recognise extinction of the universe

Jack Schere: McAuliffe is referring to "Quantum suicide and immortality", as described in the wikipedia entry of the same name. Consider Schrödinger's cat. We open the box and find it either dead or alive. But under the many worlds interpretation, the collapse of a superposition is actually a bifurcation of the universe - one in which outcome A occurs, and one in which outcome B does instead. So, regardless of what state you find the cat in, the cat itself will "find" itself in the branch in which it survives.

Quantum suicide and immortality suggests one could experimentally test the many world interpretation by repeatedly putting oneself in the cats position. Surviving n rounds would have an improbability of 0.5^n. Of course you would not survive to observe negative evidence, and McAuliffe hasn't suggested any alternative experiments. I don't see an argument here.

Please sign in to comment.