If by "possible" you mean fucking batshit retarded with no possible consequence or relevance then yes, totally.

Well you still are gonna die if you shoot yourself.

Another you existing by not dying would hardly matter since YOU ARE DEAD.

>>408009
So it really has no practical consequences?

>>408009
a consequence would be to commit extreme bank robberies where you can either survive and get away or die. but dont ask me about the details.

My friend rants about that shit. Not fucking true. The path of the bullet would be so similar in every universe that you would die in every one, if it were a fatal shot.

Also, "quantum" refers to an "amount".

Please "quantify" immortality. Oh wait, THAT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE!

>>408015
If you thought about it for longer than 5 seconds you'd know the answer - no.
>>408017
Hurrdurr utrollme etc

ITT ---> fags afraid of dead, they have to believe in quantum bullshit like religious do

I bet you would all nod your head in wisdom if somebody asked about parallel universes, pretty much every physicist includes them in his pop science books or shows... but if somebody mentions immortality as a consequence: TROLL. hypocrites.

>>408048
Nope, it's all bullshit. OTHER universes sure, but the whole idea of the replication upon every possible action by every possible thing is just fucking retarded and counter intuitive.

>>408018
What if the gun doesn't go off when you pull the trigger?

>universe splits into two versions to accommodate each outcome
>two versions
>each outcome

>>408000
>splits into two versions
?
Not much room for conservation of energy there, is there?

If the quantum immortality explanation is true, it leads to some very, very dark consequences

Consider:
There are infinitely many worlds where you survive the suicide with no problems at all

There are, however, even more possible universes* where you only JUST survive - in massive pain, or with irreversible brain damage. For example, a situation where you blow most of your head off but are kept alive on a ventilator in agonising pain with no way to tell the doctors to turn off your life support. This means as you shoot yourself, you are limiting towards a set of affairs where you may desperately wish to be dead, but can never kill yourself. Its pretty scary.

*Lrn2 count sets with an uncountable number of members, e.g. "there are more numbers divisible by two than numbers divisible by ten". Its kind of true, kind of not, but saves everyone time because everyone knows what I mean at least

>>408076
you have to limit the survival chance, like putting yourself on fire, eat poison, shoot in head and jump from bridge. all a the same time.

There is a fly in the mathematical ointment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_diagonal_argument
Even though Op's process generates an infinite number of possibilities, the ideal situation of healthy immortality may not exist within that infinite set. Even an infinity large set of possibilities will not contain ALL possibilities (of infinite duration), due to Cantor's argument.

>>408094
Sometimes I hate /sci/, and then a post like this comes along and restores my faith in everyone and everything. Not sure if I agree with you, but you just made me think REALLY hard, which I fucking loved

/fanboyism

> Implying there isn't only one outcome
> Implying the gun can violate thermodynamics

>>408094
but cant the future set be an uncountable set?

depends if the many world interpretaion of QM is right.....this is a question that the best and brightest physicist are still debating...I doubt anyone on /sci/ is up par do even debate such a question....SO YALL GO LEARN SOME PHYSICS!!!

>>408127
>implying a bullet can't misfire

The trouble with the majority of quantum theory is it's inherent lack of testability.

This leads to a lot of bullshit being "proven" by math constructed purely to give the answer the scientist was looking for. If the math is good enough any random fantasy bullshit can become an accepted theory.

>>408140
see string theory for a great example

>>408136
> Implying a misfire is a result of a gun not wanting to fire
> Implying that the bullet's ability to fire isn't predetermined by its original physical structure and the functional workings of the gun
> Implying the bullet can somehow rearrange itself to be a non firing round, thus violating causality.
> Implying you know anything about firearms

>>408128
Not if your definition of future permits counting, as does Op's description, which is just an exponential series. A relationship with the set of natural numbers can be made: n(the last number of generation m of Op's series)=2^m(in the natural number set)

>>408000
> Implying the scenario has more than one outcome

>>408156
>implying the chemical reaction inside a detonator cap is completely disconnected from quantum fluctuations.

>>408165
everything can be broken down to sub-scenarios each of which have two outcomes (i.e. binary encoding).

>>408178

>Implying you didn't just learn that on wikipedia

>>408195
>implying you can read about quantum fluctuations when wikiing for primers

>>408156
> Implying a misfire is a result of a gun not wanting to fire
Silly! Inanimate object don't have wills of their own. Except for weapons, that is.
> Implying that the bullet's ability to fire isn't predetermined by its original physical structure and the functional workings of the gun
QM permits identical objects to behave differently.
> Implying the bullet can somehow rearrange itself to be a non firing round, thus violating causality.
Causality is not violated by the random element of wave packet collapse.
> Implying you know anything about firearms
On some days they don't seem to like me.

this quantum shit i bullshit, seems awfully untested and incoherent... where did they get the idea that multiple universes exist? every time I press a key on my keyboard I create a different reality where I mispressed a key? that's just dumb.

Whether or not the bullet will fire when the primer is struck was determined at the time of manufacture. There's no probability superposition at the time of firing for this macroscopic object.

>>408199
also why is consciousness carried over before the bullet enters the brain and begins to damage everything? if consciousness has to be carried over at the exact moment when your twins die then the survivors always end up with a bullet in his brain.

>>408210
cool mechanistic worldview bro.

>>408210
Not so. Background radiation is all about us. Even the primer itself will be slightly radioactive. If it's radioactive it will be slowly transmuting and it will be doing so randomly, atom by atom. This will affect the outcome when the firing pin strikes. A misfire will always be a possibility regardless of manufacturing efficiency.

>>408178
> Implying quantum fluctuations can change the pressure of a system
> Implying quantum fluctuations can change the temperature of a system
> Implying quantum fluctuations can change the total energy of the system.
> Implying quantum fluctuations can change molecular activation energy
> Implying quantum fluctuations will return molecules to a state of order
> Implying Force does not equal Mass* Acceleration
> Implying Kinetic energy does not equal .5mass*velocity squared
> Implying the primer will not be activated by the hammer
> Implying the bullet will not fire
> Implying you won't get shot in the face

Schrodinger developed the paradox of "Schrodinger's Cat" to relate a single quantum event (the random decay of a subatomic particle) to a macroscopic event (the death of a cat).

But this concept of "quantum immortality" attempts to relate macroscopic events, where classical physics already works fine, and guns already work the way we expect.

Put another way, "quantum immortality" only waves its hands at quantum theory without really calculating any quantum theory.

It's true OP, go ahead an try it.

>>408228
>implying you didnt read >>408223

>>408223
that's a cuil 3 argument.
This guy is in a box. There are no external forces apart from him and the gun.

Shall we call this thread "For want of a quantum nail"?

>>408267
The fellow is naturally radioactive, he's brought in the forces of random chance with him. That's why, afterwords, we can date the fuckers corpse using carbon dating.

>>408263
> Implying the scenario isn't about a guy in a box with a gun
> Implying that radiation was ever depicted in the original problem
> Implying that you aren't changing the problem completely
> Implying that random background radiation isn't a negligible effect on the system
> Implying that sufficient background radiation to have an effect on the firearm wouldn't be outright lethal to the human
> Implying that quantum fluctuations will cause more radiation to strike the primer than the human who is over 3 magnitudes larger.
> Implying that the human doesn't die either way this scenario is played out

>>408221
>>408223

Actual primer reliability suggests otherwise.

Even at maximum possible decay determined by probability that would lead to a dead primer it's still not going to happen before it's used.

You can use old ammo from WW1 today and it's still perfectly reliable.

Switching this thread to cuil level 4.

Quantum science is... complicated. There are a lot of testable, provable phenomenon that are completely in congruent with logical thinking.

That being said... I take anything about ZOMG OTHER UNIVERSES AND SHIT CUZ OF MATH AND PHYSICS with a grain of salt. Maybe when we can actually fully understand our universe, ill believe someone when they tell me the understand another one.

primer: Engineers doing science by looking at blueprints and writing this:

A \rightleftharpoons B

>>408292
>Implying that random background radiation isn't a negligible effect on the system

why is it negligible when we are talking about every possible outcome of the scenario. if it can happen it's not negligible for this thought experiment.

>>408295
Perfect reliability cannot be measured.
All you can get is a statistical likelihood based on the amount of ammo tested.
And even if you test an infinite amount of ammo, Georg Cantor creeps up behind you and humps your theoretical statistics with his argument.

>>408343
explain the relevance of cantor here.

>>408343
If the primer going bad on its own were a factor, it still would not happen at the time of the trigger pull. The gun's ability to fire is entirely determined before the trigger is pulled.

>>408341

>thought experiment

Get the fuck off my /sci

ITT: People who don't understand the point of quantum immortality and think it's just about putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger.

GUYS

STOP FOR A SECOND

CONSIDER WHAT YOU'RE ARGUING ABOUT

>>408369
wat????

Quantum superposition does not apply at the macroscopic scale.

>>408341
>thought experiment

You mean fantasy. Learn the difference.

>>408352
An infinite sample set, of ammo that's to be used consecutively or exponentially, will necessarily include ammo that wont be used for an infinite amount of time has passed. Ammo with a infinite history inscribed on it's material structure is the same as set elements of infinite size. Cantor's argument implies not all possible elements of infinite size/complexity will be found in an infinitely large, countable, sample set.

>>408373
only passive aggressive fucktards use "ITT" instead of attacking their opponent like a man or simply ignore the thread.

> Implying consciousness is a quantum level system
> Implying consciousness has an effect on external environmental factors
> Implying that being alive will important quantum fluctuations on objects separate from the system
> Implying that loss of conscious thought is a direct result of the primer activating
> Implying that the bullet firing in your face causes a direct shutdown of mental activity
> Implying that death occurs on a microtemporal scale
> Implying that death isn't caused by any number of physical malfunctions typically associated with receiving a high velocity round in the face
> Implying that quantum fluctuations work on macrotemporal scale
> Implying that the person's quantum state of mind matters any more than a microsecond from the initiation of the chain of events in the firearm
> Implying that temporal events will spite every rule of nature, man, and machine, just to prevent you from getting shot in the face.

>>408365
To test ammo you must fire it.
Pistol ammo is not reusable.
Every test of pistol ammo is a destruction test.

>>408409
Testing is irrelevant. If the primer is ruined it's not going to fire at the moment of truth, nor would it go off accidentally before then. There is only one outcome.

>>408384
a cap is like a box, and the powder is the cat. even if its macroscopic the outcome of a firing pin hitting the cap is not completely free of randomness. nothing ever is free of random behavior, it's just that macroscopic objects can almost cancel out random behavior because of law of large numbers.

>>408397
>>408292
>>408228
>>408156
> Debunking quantum immortality
> 2 pages of greentext

>>408426
>a cap is like a box, and the powder is the cat.

I was waiting for this, but so help me I actually hoped that you knew better and would surprise me.

Schroedinger's cat was meant as a demonstration of how ridiculous the concept of superposition sounds. It was specifically chosen because of its inapplicability on a macro scale.

The fact that you took the idea to mean something that it does not is evidence enough that you haven't the faintest clue of what you are talking about.

>>408466
[citation needed]

>>408475
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

Oh hey, it's even on your favorite site you witless fuck.

>>408423
No such thing as future knowledge in a quantum universe.

>>408466
lol you sure like to hear yourself talking arent you? sorry for bringing up an inapplicable example in a thread about quantum immortality.

>>408492

Good thing the quantum world doesn't exist on the macro scale, then.

>>408466
Just because something sounds absurd doesn't mean it can't be true. Where is the evidence that schroedinger's cat isn't in a superposition of states?

>>408501
Oh I'm sorry, did I ruin your naive bullshit?

>>408000
the universe does not split because there are no 'possible outcomes' we might not know if the gun shoots or jams (cant see if auto or revolver) but he either shoots or jams, not both in separate universes .

not knowing something does not mean all possibilities of what it might be exist, only one exists .

>>408508
yeah, I was going to get a gun thats for sure. fucktard.

what about a scenario where it is physically impossible for you not to die?

huh? huh?

where's your precious science now?

>>408503
You've never heard of superconductors or superfluids then? All quantum effects un explainable by classical physics.

this is so much bullshit

people should just fucking stop taking these retarded ideas, throw the word "quantum" in and make it sound like something scientific

goddamnit

>>408548
>You've never heard of superconductors or superfluids then?

I have. Apparently you haven't if you think mentioning them supports your argument.

>>408520
Ah ha! About time we tripped over Hidden Variable Theory. What you're proposing has the formal name Local Realism...only one possible outcome, known or unknown, with no other possibilities.
Wrongo! Repeatedly shot down in flames. Ok, there are some who make their living as naysayers, but it's pretty much a dead idea. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments

>>408559
>throw the word "quantum" in and make it sound like something scientific

>>408581

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser

sup

Quantum stupidity is a real theory.
I't explains the 'Zero Point Idiocy'.

>>408565
Of course they do!
You're way behind the tech. We've have devices that use macroscopic quantum effects for some time. For example the SQUID.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQUID