Many worlds makes me pause. Do I end up in a world where I'm in infinite agony, severely crippled ect despite the low odds?
shut the fuck up with this unscientific hooey
>>15876994can you answer in context of the theory?
>>15877030There is no coherent answers involving incoherent theories.
>>15877030MW is not a theory. It's a flawed interpretation.
>>15876991Some versions of you will
>>15877030no, not really anon
>>15876991>infinite agony, severely crippled ect despite the low odds?Why would this not happen when you die for any other reason anyway?
>>15877060Why would it happen?
>>15877068If it is assumed to be a risk for suicide, what makes any other cause of death different?
>>15877072Mental state at time of death.
>>15877072I misunderstood your question. You're right, it would happen regardless of how you die or even if you don't die
>>15877075Could be avoided in some ways. For example, drugging yourself.
>>15876991This isnt Many Worlds. You're talking about quantum immortality which requires Many Worlds to be true, but Many Worlds being true doesn't mean quantum immortality is true.
>>15877087No, taking drugs in order to die is an inherently negative mental state that isn't very compatible with good things resulting. Maybe if you mentioned sacrificing your life to save a child or something, you would be onto something.
>>15877091For you to consider suicide already means the negative mental state exists, so this is a base assumption you're not getting rid of under the premise of the discussion. If you didn't have such a mental state, you wouldn't have to weigh the risks of suicide to begin with. Since death is inevitable, there is no qualitative downgrade posed by suicide.
>>15877095>to considerNot if they overcame the urge and learned to focus on more positive actions and direct their energy to more productive means.
>>15877101We are discussing whether the act of suicide would directly cause eternal suffering under the framework of quantum immortality, not whether suicide is good or not or trying to talk OP out of it.
>>15876991The Many Worlds interpretation is unfalsifiable science-fiction writing.
>>15877114We were, but now you are conceding and I am accepting since you can't even justify suicide as nondestructive.
>>15877138I have no reason to "justify suicide as nondestructive" nor was that ever the topic.
>>15876991Scientifically, what reality did Mario end up in?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNhpk-kFLT4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUl-ek3P-08
>>15877148I already accepted you concession since you obviously can't justify your position that suicide isn't inherently bad and more likely to lead to prolonged agony than positive productive outcomes.
>>15877212Sir, we are talking about quantum immortality
>>15877213Yes and how if you purposely squander the gift of life it will be more like quantum agony.
>>15877216And why would this be different from experiencing any other fatal situation and finding yourself mutilated but not dead
>>15877218>>15877075 this determines your respawn point.
>>15877222I don't think respawn points are postulated by quantum immortality
>>15877200I just watched the entire video and not once does he name any testable consequences of MWI, nor provide any reason to believe in it in the first place. He just rambles about how a lot of other things in physics seem far fetched and how students are closed-minded.
>>15877223No wonder you are so confused about the topic if you haven't even gotten to reincarnation yet.
>>15877227Reincarnation is not part of the problem OP poses
>>15877228Except where a many worlds interpretation would lead to infinite worlds with reincarnation.
>>15877236No the idea is just that you will perceive the timeline in which you survive forever despite incredibly low probability, ie you die in 99.99999% of possible realities but your subjective experience is always the one that doesn't end
What a retarded schizo thread
>>15877053By me I mean the *continuation of consciousness in the majority of worlds where this mind is still supported*. Some versions, yes obviously, but I am asking where the majority end up. Do the majority also end up is perpetual agony in rare worlds?>>15877072Because suicide is a procedure. Other causes of death you can imagine the majority of worlds where the person is cured or they bounce off the car ect. Also sucide is to rid the mind of a negative state via destruction not to increase it.
>>15877404>Do the majority also end up is perpetual agony in rare worlds?yeah to me this seems likely if that's the only way you get to still live, which is pretty fucked up.the idea as it is seems pretty hollywoodish sci-fi. but weirdly we might be able to do something similar with tech. not quite but pretty much
>>15877404Depending on the method of suicide, you either survive the harmful process itself or the attempt will just fail for contrived reasons every time. It depends on whether survival is possible at a certain stage at any probability. If you choose a method that is absolutely guaranteed to cause total death if it works, like suicide bombing or a shotgun blast straight to the head, perpetual near-death should be impossible.
Your own consciousness is a probabilistic factor too. If you set up a flawless suicide method, you may just never find the guts to go through with it and change your mind every time.
>>15877414Thinking about it though the "quale of extreme pain" (sorry for that term but I don't think there is a scientific term for it) requires extra energy to persist than a more benign state. We'd expect more worlds than depend on lower energy for consciousness.>>15877437>like suicide bombing or a shotgun blast straight to the head, perpetual near-death should be impossibleI wasn't going to get into extreme versions, but now I will. Surely there would be a world or two around. MWI is a story told from the bottom-up right? A top-down cause shouldn't extinguish all of them. Also what would these extreme worlds look like? Vastly different to our own?>>15877447Well that's true too. But I'm thinking about what will happen during the actual process.