Sunday, September 2, 2007

Spicy Science...

...Is not really science...


I remember a few times in my life when I got a little too close to having a car accident, or almost falling off a parking garage, or some other close call that made me think, "Holy crap - I could've died!"

I'm sure we've all had some such experience, and after you've calmed down a little, you start thinking, "Hey... What if I did die, but now I'm living some sort of alternate existence...?"

I'm just going to assume that it's not just me that has thought this after a close call. I know you all have entertained the notion at some point, if not after numerous frightening experiences...

Well, the old alternate life-route idea has shown up in my life again. No, not because I fell down in the kitchen while making coffee and dislocated my elbow (Remember kids: Always be careful when standing), but rather because I spend my time surfing the internet and happened to stumble across an interesting idea:

Quantum Suicide / Quantum Immortality

If you don't feel like reading, or you just feel more comfortable staring at the bluish-hued background of Foreecon and don't want to click on links, I'll summarize (and do absolutely no justice to the articles since this has been written about countless times by much more knowledgeable folks than I.)

---
Some version of you, in at least one of the infinite number of parallel universes in the multiverse, will escape every situation that leads to your death, and consequently you'll live forever. Given an infinite set of possibilities, there is a non-zero chance that at least "one of you" will be given every opportunity to survive continuously.

So, think of something that could kill you, then imagine how you somehow survive, given a particular set of circumstances that are required, and available, in one of an infinite number of possible universes.

The interesting implication of this interpretation of quantum mechanics is that an observer is necessary for your continued existence (put simply....), and thus the life in which you live eternally is the one that you're observing; the only one you will personally be able to experience, also known as you.

So, as everyone you know ultimately dies, you'll be miraculously escaping all diseases and dangers, living one shockingly lucky year after another. Of course, from their perspective, you already died millions of times in millions (or an infinite number...) of universes, in every conceivable way.
---

In one universe I was found dead on my kitchen floor, surrounded by coffee and hot women, with that song "Life's Been Good" by The Eagles playing on the stereo.

...But In my universe, there were no women and I had to clean 10 square yards of coffee with my one good arm, and I certainly wasn't listening to that song by The Eagles.

So, to apply: Every time the possibility of death seems more likely than usual, there is most likely a larger number of universes in which you have died, but not to worry: You're always gonna make it.

...And if you've ever wanted an excuse to drive a Ford Pinto down to southern Mexico for some bar-brawling and "experimentation" with cheap prostitutes (what're you gonna do, die from syphilis?!?), feel free. Unfortunately, you're just increasing the odds of devastating your family in other universe when you get syphilis in southern Mexico and die from an explosive rear-end collision while on your way to the hospital, but at least you won't know about it!
...
In some parallel universe, Ford makes cars that don't explode...

You always knew you'd live forever, didn't you?


---
In the next edition of Rock Hard Spicy Science:
Von Nuemann Probes, Berzerkers and the imminent threat to life on Earth. My sollution? Destroy all other life in the universe.
---

15 comments:

Unknown said...

In your mortal words - we will all die forever! I can't help but agree. At least what varied knowledge I have of quantum mechanics. Though I have a mixed resolution in regards to your findings.

I am impressed as to what relational balance this posting has on everything else in life. In business - everyone always talks of more failures than success. In sports - you strike out much more than you hit the grand slam homer.
In medicine - drug manufacturers go through more illness testing a drug, before curing a disease.

You can go on and on like this, but what about predator/prey situations?

For instance. If you kill the predator (aka a tiger), the wildebeest population gets out of control! But if you wipe out the wildebeest population, than the tiger population ceases to exist as well!

Now I understand that in reality the tiger would probably then find new prey, but then they are encroaching on different predators livelihood, so the population of predators still is a problem.

Any thoughts of clarity upon this?

Disposable Info said...

I'm curious as to how you made the leap to the predator/prey situation.

I was about to start rambling on about "ultimate equilibrium," but then I figured I'd request some clarification on your part before I make too many assumptions.

I see how you're suggesting that, as a proportion of the total (infinite total, however...) the "universes" in which you die, or where your business fails, or where you strike out all the time is larger than the proportion in which the less likely thing occurs, right?

So are you insinuating that - and I'm guessing here - the proportion of "existences" where the dominant species overpowers destroys the weaker ones (AKA prevents the balance of nature) is either a lot or a little, and you're wondering if our particular "version of Earth" lies in the majority of the minority?

Because now I'm pretty curious about that, too...

If that is your question, I bet we can figure out an awesome answer - If not, you'll have to clarify a little more.

Anonymous said...

"Life's Been Good" is a Joe Walsh solo song. Another indication that music without Don Henley is better.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, that really has nothing to do with you post.

Although, I have had several dreams that I die while listening to "Stairway to Heaven", which is a sad cliche.

I don't even like that song.

Disposable Info said...

During which part of "Stairway" do you usually die? The slower parts or the hefty conclusion?

That'll be hard to discern, I'm sure, but I bet you'll have a good answer...

I have known for more than a year that Joe Walsh did that song, as my roommate(s) told me about 10 times. I'm not kidding, I've literally had this conversation at least 10 times, and I keep forgetting.

Fred, I'll bet you remember that conversation about Joe Walsh.

And Zane, my prediction is that you die right after the solo guitar part at the beginning of the song...

Unknown said...

My posting basis was much more a part of the thoughts regarding the philosophy of the concept. I tried to make that clear by bringing up the "relational balance this posting has...".

Now what I mean by this is that in every situation in life do I see that through some sort of repeated trial, you succeed and fail simultaneously - whether it is because of alternate dimensions or not. The reason I bring up the predator/prey situation, is that's the only situation that I can think of that does NOT fit the scenario - whether it be multi-dimensional, or in the observed current physical.

In the Preditor/Prey, when either side succeeds and fails, it ultimately suffers. So though it was a bit of a left field moment, I hope that you understand where I brought this on.

I must say - when it came to this posting - there really wasn't an argument against what you originally wrote - I thought it quite insightful, but it made me ponder how this correlates with the world around me - in which I thought I should ask for shared thoughts in this relation - if I am missing a bigger picture, or if it is just as I see it - I was also kind of curious as to how others interpreted this as well - my comments, or the original post.

Hopefully that clarifies much more where my original comment was rooted.

Unknown said...

...oh, yeah - and I do remember that conversation about Joe Walsh...

Disposable Info said...

Fred:

You mentioned, "In the Predator/Prey, when either side succeeds and fails, it ultimately suffers"

...And now I have to start rambling about "ultimate equilibrium..."

For a (bad) example:

Starting from some sort of equilibrium mix of predator, prey and the rest of their environment, the success or failure of one element is always met with an equalizing response of another.

If the tigers received outside assistance and were made more successful, over time the wildebeest would compensate, either through changing their habits or even through their mating patterns (to yield more offspring,) or both. So, the success of the tiger in this case is ultimately met with an action that either returns to whole thing to equilibrium (most likely scenario), or leads to more wildebeest (less likely) which is beneficial to the tigers, or some tidbits of both (guaranteed!)

So, if the tigers improved their overall chances of success, they'd be met with an equalizing force OR the wildebeest would have to compensate in "family patterns." So the tigers don't lose in this situation, but if they do gain, it's at the expense of a third party.

In this case, the third party would most likely be the vegetation or the lower-on-the-food-chain animals that the tiger's prey eat (whatever the hell the wildebeest eat...?) So their environment - and weaker animals will suffer due to the change in available food, or at least the locations of food, or even by being eaten by rising numbers of wildebeest.

So, if humans installed frikkin' laser beams on the tigers' heads, it would not be the population of tigers nor the (total) population of wildebeest that would suffer - it would be some third party that would pay the price for the change in the environment, and this third-party suffering helps to return the entire systems back to its original equilibrium.

---
I apologize for acting like I know what I'm talking about so pretentiously - I really don't, but I have spent a lot of time thinking about the basic concept of economic equilibrium, so I can't resist the urge to apply the concept to every thing I come across...
---

And one more thing: If, on the other hand, humans came in and killed all the wildebeest in one fell swoop, we'd get a drastically different story - The tigers, and even the vegetation (or lower creatures) that depend on the clearing forces of wildebeest would suffer almost equally as drastically. Similarly, if we immediately destroyed all the tigers (or lions), the formerly responsive prey would experience a long period of over-growth in their population, and without the equalizing forces of their predators they'd use up a larger portion of the food chain, and this time the wildebeest would prosper at the expense of a third party. Notice, though, we get a different outcome depending on who succeeds...

So, finally to apply this crap to what we're talking about: I think your general premise, Fred, is correct - that success and failure are met with their opposite forces, but the effects of both sides pushing against each other usually end in a third party's subsequent success or failure.

My point? Everything we do or experience as humans or that occurs in nature involves a kind of balance (that you were referring to) that is unbelievably dependent on outside forces, rather than the forces that are immediately obvious, I think. Basically, if one outcome of a chance occurrence is more prevalent, it's most likely due to an "intra-universe" equilibrium, rather than an "inter-universe" proportionality, which is actually the opposite of what my post and our comments were implying.

So I think we're more likely going to be victims of necessary circumstance at some point in our lives that leads to our death rather than miraculously escape every unfortunate circumstance (as this would require a equilibrium that leaves you out, somehow, of the system. So, again, the whole point would be moot in this case...

Now how's THAT for rambling?
To be honest, I just invented a random phrase generator that spits out words that seem to form sentences. I HAD to use it!

Unknown said...

So I guess it's my turn to sum up what you are saying...the grass either dies or becomes over grown...

Disposable Info said...

Laughing. ...Out Loud...

Unknown said...

I sense the implication of...

"Laughing, Out Loud, so you don't have to!"

Disposable Info said...

I am laughing out loud right now. Well, I was when I started typing this sentence...

Hey Fred - How was the flight and your weekend and all that crap?

Unknown said...

don't much miss the long flights - but it was awesome to see the folks and fam again, I just wish I would have had the extra day that I thought I would...a Tucson trip would have been stupendous!

Josh said...

am i the only one whose mind started to wander into donnie darko land?

Disposable Info said...

Funny enough, my fingers were actually compelled to type that entire post by some cylindrical bubbly fate-goo.

Hey Schlag! Long time no talky. Good timing, too - I'm going to join you guys this Saturday, the 15th - as long as Darrell is driving so I can beer it up. When I get there, remind me to show you my cylindrical goo.