Hello

I assume we humans are complex many-particle systems and our consciousness is produced by a many-particle system (our brain). Such a many-particle system is fully described by the knowledge of a state in a Hilbert space. Assuming at time t=0 we had two identical "human systems" in the same state. In what way would the consciousness of these two systems differ? Would the two brains produce the identical consciousness?

Assuming there would be a multiverse producing lots of universes and some universes would generate complex life systems and this would happen infinity times. Then it should be possible that after my death a system (almost) identical to mine should be formed after a very long time and in that way I would live again. It is just a question of probabilities.

What do you think about it?

(March 14, 2015 at 1:27 pm)GermanAtheist Wrote: Hello

I assume we humans are complex many-particle systems and our consciousness is produced by a many-particle system (our brain). Such a many-particle system is fully described by the knowledge of a state in a Hilbert space. Assuming at time t=0 we had two identical "human systems" in the same state. In what way would the consciousness of these two systems differ? Would the two brains produce the identical consciousness?

Assuming there would be a multiverse producing lots of universes and some universes would generate complex life systems and this would happen infinity times. Then it should be possible that after my death a system (almost) identical to mine should be formed after a very long time and in that way I would live again. It is just a question of probabilities.

What do you think about it?

I've always found arguments based on the necessity of every conceivable variation being present somewhere in a limitless array of universes unpersuasive. Moreover, if the after-life in question is entirely disconnected from my current identity, I don't really care. It has no bearing on anything I would do or believe here and now.

Besides I already look forward to a productive after life as mulch.

I think we used to think that space was continuous.
Theories change.
I see no expectation that a theory of multiple universes necessarily has to be a theory of an infinite number of universes. Actual physical infinities are hard to find and I expect they will remain so.

In a multi-world scenario, there would be another you, but not being made of the exact same particles, it would have it's own consciousness.

---

If you want a 'bonkers' answer. You are not the you that you were ten minutes ago. You are the you that remembers being you ten minutes ago.

(March 14, 2015 at 1:27 pm)GermanAtheist Wrote: Hello

I assume we humans are complex many-particle systems and our consciousness is produced by a many-particle system (our brain). Such a many-particle system is fully described by the knowledge of a state in a Hilbert space. Assuming at time t=0 we had two identical "human systems" in the same state. In what way would the consciousness of these two systems differ? Would the two brains produce the identical consciousness?

I think if you do that and keep evolving the state a la schroedinger, you automatically get many worlds with many possibilities realized in parallel corresponding to all the superpositions generated by the schroedinger evolution. If you take a copenhagenapproach and observe the test person from the outside after a while, you will in general find two different random outcomes corresponding to different subjective experiences.
The question what constitutes an individual mind timeline inside this quantum state is I think a very challenging problem.

Quote:Assuming there would be a multiverse producing lots of universes and some universes would generate complex life systems and this would happen infinity times. Then it should be possible that after my death a system (almost) identical to mine should be formed after a very long time and in that way I would live again. It is just a question of probabilities.

What do you think about it?

It would be a clone, nothing with continuity to your self

(March 14, 2015 at 1:37 pm)JuliaL Wrote: I think we used to think that space was continuous.
Theories change.
I see no expectation that a theory of multiple universes necessarily has to be a theory of an infinite number of universes. Actual physical infinities are hard to find and I expect they will remain so.

Infinity is tough. I think it unreasonable to assume that our universe is the only one. If we can have two, then why not three. It is possible that all possible worlds, universes, existences, etc., do exist, but not necessarily an infinite number of possibilities.

I think if one of these doppelgangers 'remembered' living my life, it would be seen as evidence for reincarnation. It would do nothing to extend the conscious experience of me in this universe's timeline. It would be an oddity there (unless everybody there experienced similar things), and a non-event here.

The question of afterlife is a very interesting one but obviously equally fruitless. We may be constructing hypotheses all we want but according the the scientific method, there has to be an experiment to prove them. In some cases this technically equals returning from the dead. Today the experiments either disprove the afterlife hypotheses or the hypotheses are so that there's no possible experiment to test them yet (as in with the existance of the Creator or other universes or anything like that).
My own non-scientific view is that there may be some kind of symmetry involving the presense of the observers in our Universe. In other words it's some kind of conservation law-based "re-incarnation" without any kind of soul involved (at least not as we mean it). It's something like you die and without any comprehensible transitional process appear (get "born" in a one way or another) completely blank, without any knowledge or memories from the past (preserving identity in one way or another may sound appealing but this goes even further beyond science). I'd like to point out here that I don't treat this view in a way religious people do. This means I don't actually take reality as if it was a correct hypothesis. Strictly speaking, I leave the answer as 'undefined' because I don't want to end up with a self-delusion, which is useless and not really very interesting.

P.S. I've noticed that many people aren't able to accept 'undefined' as an answer on a fundamental scale. They are more likely to unconsciously or even knowingly accept a self-delusion rather than to leave the question as is. This seems to be due to a subliminal fear of unknown. This is valid not only for eternal questions but also for those that have been already answered but the individual doesn't care enaugh to find the answer (i.e. fear of unknown * laziness = ignorance).

(March 14, 2015 at 6:04 pm)Smaug Wrote: The question of afterlife is a very interesting one but obviously equally fruitless. We may be constructing hypotheses all we want but according the the scientific method, there has to be an experiment to prove them. In some cases this technically equals returning from the dead. Today the experiments either disprove the afterlife hypotheses or the hypotheses are so that there's no possible experiment to test them yet (as in with the existance of the Creator or other universes or anything like that).

Mybold
Returning from the dead isn't going to be very useful in proving an afterlife unless you remember what you were doing while you were out. Even if you did remember, there's no guarantee that your memories aren't false. As I am happy to point out to theists who want to tell me all about the afterlife; I'm not interested in what you think my eternal and indestructible soul will be doing throughout eternity if you can't tell me where it went last night between about 10:30PM and this morning when I got up.

Quote: My own non-scientific view is that there may be some kind of symmetry involving the presense of the observers in our Universe. In other words it's some kind of conservation law-based "re-incarnation" without any kind of soul involved (at least not as we mean it). It's something like you die and without any comprehensible transitional process appear (get "born" in a one way or another) completely blank, without any knowledge or memories from the past.

Sounds like Hawking Chronology Protection Conjecture
I'm not sure if you are insisting on conscious observers or not. But I don't grant much primacy to sentience. I think it is an emergent and wholly material phenomenon developed by natural selection which gives an edge to those organisms who actually want to preserve themselves.

JuliaL

IIt seems that I've edited my answer before you posted yours. Anyway, as I've said, strictly speaking I leave the answer as 'Undefined'.

Quote:I'm not sure if you are insisting on conscious observers or not.

I don't. But the whole thing here is very vague. In fact, I don't think that there has to be any observers at all. Though conscience may be some sort of a qualitatively different way of organization of matter (relative to the unconscious matter) and as long as conscious observers appear there are some laws that appear to apply to them only (although logically said laws have to derive from some more basic laws that describe all the matter).

Also it can be said that the problem is somewhat ambivalent. On the one hand, the self-preservation instinct (I'd include a will to preserve the identity as a higher manifestation of said instinct though it may not be generally correct) pushes us to do something about the question. On the other hand, death is definitely an important thing for the evolution as a away to prevent stagnation and actually adopt and move on. This may be extended to stagnation of thought and ideas, too.

By the way, another similar question is why there is life. In a more scientific formulation it may sound as: does self-conscious matter (life) have some advantages over non-conscious matter (in terms of physical existence)? Since the laws of Nature have lead to the appearance of life this may mean that there may or may not be some advantages of such a way of organization of matter. On the other hand, the principle of casuality may not even apply here and the whole question may be invalid.