I am Immortal.

[Upward Thrust]

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.

[IntoTheLight]

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-

[VideCorSpoon]

I would call it the highlander theory because in the end… there can be only one. LOL! Seriously though, I have never heard of it before. I’m not big into pseudo-science, so I refer more to standard abstract philosophies and the like for the basis of my answers. Its certainly not bad to reference the former, but that is just how it is for me. That being said, there are a few directions you could take this though applying parts of your quote and work by various philosophers (not all of them mind you but some of them);

As I read the quote you posted, you have two fundamental points that tie consciousness to immortality. The first is that consciousness is a thing in itself and is autonomous (therein lies the issues associated with free will [Leibniz?]). Otherwise, how could anything “allow” itself do anything? Second, there is a delineation between the autonomy of consciousness and reality (i.e. universes splitting off). Free will and multiple universes are very specific in philosophy and narrow down the scope quite a bit. Honestly, the person who (at least in my opinion) would most likely fit near this hybrid theory is Gottfried Leibniz. I would also mention that immortality seldom does not include theological aspects, like the concepts of a soul or something like that. But Leibniz seems a good on-the-fence philosopher to use for an example though.

Leibniz would probably agree with some of the principles in the quote. Leibniz believed in a fundamental substance in the universe, namely the monad. Essentially, the monad is that “substance" that comprises the universe (which he calls the plenum) and was divided into three distinct levels, each possessing a gradient of the preceding plus additional attributes. Entelechies (the bare monad) is what we would consider the blanks of the universe. Entelechies are unconscious, cannot grow, reflect the universe confusedly, and can go out of existence. The next monad is the “animal monad,” which possess the positive attributes of the form, plus more specialized abilities. Animal monads, Leibniz argues, are the point at which most human spend a great amount of their lives as. We have conscious perception, memory, reason inductively, etc. On the top of the monad chain are “rational souls,” which are 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 Monodology, but I will call them some of them out axiomatically in the interest of writing space. Monads are simple substances, since they are the substance of the universe. As simple substances they are irreducible… so nothing is predicated of it except itself (making it something fully isolated and independent from outside influence). Some other things about monads are that they are purely quantitative (otherwise they could be cut down infinitely) and also they cannot come in and out of reality because all monads are created at the beginning of the universe.

That very point is where I think this is a hybrid Leibnizian theory. The universe is basically full of monads (the universe is a plenum full to the brim with monads). Each monad is basically a universe in itself (both to the consciousness of whatever is in it and everything else). However, Leibniz posits that there are multiple universes in that there are “ infinite and multiple worlds” in the form of an endless extension of monads. The universe that we experience it is the “dominant monad” which Leibniz states reflects the world most accurately. It is on that note that the notion of consciousness in your quote and the “split universes” seems like they could be applied together.

To sum it up, Leibniz permits a consciousness in the form of the monad (the dominant monad in the end) which persists through time as a quality of itself. There are also multiple worlds (universes) in which events could be different even in the slightest minutia. But the monad persists through time regardless of the reality so long as that monad is the dominant and experiential one. In a sense, it the monad (consciousness) could be considered immortal and applicable to a multiple universe theory. There is a lot more to it, but that is just a basic summary.

Another reason I use Leibniz is that the primary topic, immortality, is pretty much a nexus point to Leibniz. Plato (specifically Phaedo 78b-80c) discusses the matter of the soul and its logical ability to persist through time just as much as George Berkeley did ( a markedly different outlook compared to Leibniz). Both of these guys rely heavily on the irreducibility of the soul (taken to be consciousness if you read it right) therein allowing it to persist through time… immortality. Leibniz accounts for this I think. Other than that, you could check out Kant, who basically attributes immortality as a postulate of pure reason. And if all else fails, look to theology.

[buffalobill90]

Originally Posted by Upward Thrust

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.

[Bill Hicks]

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.

[Pyrrho]

Originally Posted by Upward Thrust

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Bill Hicks

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.

[Alan McDougall]

Many-worlds interpretation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





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 Schrödinger's cat,[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

[JeffreyEly]

Originally Posted by buffalobill90

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.

[Alan McDougall]

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