Death never actually occurs?

[andy4]

Please try and stick with me through this, as my understanding of these subjects is somewhat minute. I would truly like for someone with a better knowledge on the subject to correct me if any of the following is at all wrong.

From what quantum physics tells us, the world around us reacts to our consciousness. From what I understand there are 2 states to where our consciousness is reacted upon in the quantum world. One is quantum superposition, when we aren't observing something. The other is well, the world around us when we are there to observe it. I gather from this that when we die, we just go back into quantum superposition, because relative to you and your consciousness, the world no longer exists relative to you and only you. Just want to make that clear, that it's only there when you experience it. Now going into the subject of sleep, is it at all possible that when we are asleep the same quantum superposition occurs? We are obviously not aware of the physical world when sleeping, and our observing consciousness is effectively all but gone. To take it one step further, why is sleep so instantaneous to us? To me, if when asleep if we are actually in quantum entanglement, we time travel while sleeping, due to the fact (I think?) that particles such as photons (but not limited to) travel at the speed of light, hence the time dilation while we sleep. Due to us literally being, relative to just you again, in quantum superposition. Now I will admit that my understanding of this subject is rather small, but I would appreciate some input, and honestly let me know if this is all a bunch of nonsense. Please specify for me though. Any thoughts on this?

Edited September 18, 2013 by andy4

[The Id3al Experience]

The problem occurs when using quantum physics at the macroscopic level.

Answers to you question is, No - you do not turn into a superposition when you sleep.

However we just dont know how the quantum world really effects the macro, until then answers remain speculation. Best theory so far I beleive is Decoherence.

[+and-then]

I don't understand the sciences of this but I have believed for many years that death is a kind of transition that we cannot understand and that we instantly become aware of a different dimension. So this might fit into the conversation Thanks for posting.

[The Id3al Experience]

I don't understand the sciences of this but I have believed for many years that death is a kind of transition that we cannot understand and that we instantly become aware of a different dimension. So this might fit into the conversation Thanks for posting.

The problem we face here is the theory of consiousness, we do not know enough on this subject to come to a correct answer, however, if consiousness is simply and electrial signal in the brain, then it stands to reason that the consiousness ceases at the time th brain ceases creating electrial charges. ( I have my own theorys and do not beleive it to be true - however we must consider this option as a very viable one)

[andy4]

The problem occurs when using quantum physics at the macroscopic level.

Answers to you question is, No - you do not turn into a superposition when you sleep.

However we just dont know how the quantum world really effects the macro, until then answers remain speculation. Best theory so far I beleive is Decoherence.

I've also pondered that myself, quite a few times as far as how or if superposition actually occurs. This was just my bit of speculation however. Thank you for the reply!

To and then; your welcome! I also believe that death is just a transition and that we exist eternally, in one form or another.

[White Crane Feather]

Well there are some things I would say about this thought experiment that don't mesh entirely with QM, but it is an interesting musing. I have often wondered myself if altered states of consciousness are sort of a superposition of consciousness. The problem of course is that if you are aware if it and can remember it, then it's being measured and therefore cannot be in superposition.

You are going to take a lot of flack from the local empirinazis for suggesting that consciousness causes collapse of wave functions. It's more simply the fact that it can be known. But there are strong arguments that indeed the base of this is an observer. As if reality were a giant VR machine.

I prefer to think of sleep, altered states of consciousness, and even death as merely changing a channel.

Edited September 18, 2013 by White Crane Feather

[charmcph]

Interesting subject,

I guess I have to believe theres more after death. I've had a couple experiences

.... drowned when I was 12, remember couldn't breath anymore, gulping in water, floating to bottom, then seeing white, then hearing and seeing a hand reach for me and telling me it wasn't time for me. I remember the quiteness, as no sound, remember how pretty the water was, it was clear and could see the sun and other people swimming above me. It was a large lake. Then I awoke to a man giving me cpr.

second time.... i was driving and someone went to turn in front of me ..knew I wasn't going to miss them and be a bad crash... yet again..there was the .... no sound, seeing the people in the other cars go by in slow motion, amazed how my car was fitting in between the other cars, ...again hearing a voice say... "not your time". Then the sound came rushing back, squeal of tires, etc. There was never a crash, I had slipped between cars on the left and cars on the right. Still gives me shivers to think ..how and why?

So yeal I believe there's something or someone waiting for us

[andy4]

The problem of course is that if you are aware if it and can remember it, then it's being measured and therefore cannot be in superposition.

Alright now lets say that this is true. If one then has an out of body experience, and can observe their body from the outside, does that count as being measured? Or would that be a state of superposition? One or the other has to be true I would think. If you can remember an obe, then it's not in superposition, and therefore consciousness is not confined to the body.

Might be kinda off topic, but it got me thinking.

Edited September 18, 2013 by andy4

[tipsy_munchkin]

Please try and stick with me through this, as my understanding of these subjects is somewhat minute. I would truly like for someone with a better knowledge on the subject to correct me if any of the following is at all wrong.

From what quantum physics tells us,

[Rlyeh]

From what quantum physics tells us, the world around us reacts to our consciousness.

I'm aware of no experiment that shows it is our consciousness, and when did our measuring devices become conscious?

But there are strong arguments that indeed the base of this is an observer. As if reality were a giant VR machine.

You wouldn't know what the arguments are since you refuse the read the experiment papers. Edited September 18, 2013 by Rlyeh

[White Crane Feather]

Alright now lets say that this is true. If one then has an out of body experience, and can observe their body from the outside, does that count as being measured? Or would that be a state of superposition? One or the other has to be true I would think. If you can remember an obe, then it's not in superposition, and therefore consciousness is not confined to the body.

Might be kinda off topic, but it got me thinking.

Any kind of self awareness must be self measurement. That's what self awareness is. I don't think the body or where you are at relative to it has anything to do with it. It would be interesting though and I always thought this is the answer to shrodingers paradox. Certainly if you were put in the black box, you would be able to measure if you were dead or not. (At least the or not part). I think the cat is perfectly capable of measuring its own status, and therefore cannot ever be in superposition. Now put a system incapable of measurement in the death trap, then we are back to superposition.

Haveing had many OBEs, I can tell you that you are self aware during them. Keenly so.

[+joc]

The problem lies here:

the world no longer exists relative to you and only you. Just want to make that clear, that it's only there when you experience it.

We cannot know that this is true. Most likely, the truth lies somewhere else...closer to the truth is: One can only experience the 'world' when one is alive.

The problem is that you are taking theories that don't apply in this context and stating them as fact. The world and everything in it is what it is, whether you are there to observe it or not. Quantum Physics doesn't change that. It just analyzes it on a much deeper level than the 5 senses can account for.

[andy4]

The problem lies here:

We cannot know that this is true. Most likely, the truth lies somewhere else...closer to the truth is: One can only experience the 'world' when one is alive.

The problem is that you are taking theories that don't apply in this context and stating them as fact. The world and everything in it is what it is, whether you are there to observe it or not. Quantum Physics doesn't change that. It just analyzes it on a much deeper level than the 5 senses can account for.

No, I wasn't really trying to state anything as fact, that's why I said my understanding is somewhat small. I understand what you're saying, but what could be defined as "alive?" Is someone in say, a coma experiencing the world, or is it just confined to healthy persons? The world is no longer relevant to that person, because they aren't experiencing it.

[+joc]

No, I wasn't really trying to state anything as fact, that's why I said my understanding is somewhat small. I understand what you're saying, but what could be defined as "alive?" Is someone in say, a coma experiencing the world, or is it just confined to healthy persons? The world is no longer relevant to that person, because they aren't experiencing it.

You cannot know what a person in a coma is experiencing or not experiencing. Alive is defined as 'not dead'.

[Drayno]

Consciousness is something that many philosophers have attempted to explore. Consciousness in correlation to reality.. Both Socrates and Descartes used concepts to illustrate how the conscious mind can be tricked.

Sleep is an altered state; it's a self-hypnosis that is so habitual that we don't realize just how vulnerable we are when we are unconscious. I'd say there are some quantum repercussions from sleep, but I do not profess to know anything about such things.

The underlying conscious mind is always aware to a degree, even during sleep.

[Frank Merton]

Buddhist tradition has it that when we die our spirit does a variety of things, depending mainly on our desires and our karma, but in the end shortly becomes reborn in a new person.

If you picture mind as being a self-perpetuating process, how this could be possible is not hard to envision. Of course theorizing that it is possible is not the same as showing that it actually happens.

[andy4]

You cannot know what a person in a coma is experiencing or not experiencing. Alive is defined as 'not dead'.

Ok, I agree with that. Have you ever heard of Thomas Campbell before? He has a theory called, The Theory of Everything. It somewhat explains where I was trying to go, perhaps a little bit better. I'd like to know what you or anyone else thinks of his theories.

[Rlyeh]

Ok, I agree with that. Have you ever heard of Thomas Campbell before? He has a theory called, The Theory of Everything. It somewhat explains where I was trying to go, perhaps a little bit better. I'd like to know what you or anyone else thinks of his theories.

I think it's nonsense, he cites experiments and adds his own details (e.g. Delayed choice quantum eraser). Many experiments have been done without a conscious or living "observer".

Even on his own forum his supporters have acknowledged his lack of experiments.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Rlyeh

[andy4]

I'm aware of no experiment that shows it is our consciousness, and when did our measuring devices become conscious?

Alright I've done some thinking about this. Regardless of the measuring devices, aren't we the ones measuring the measuring devices? Without our consciousness, there would be no need for a measuring device, because it wouldn't be necessary. If you never saw the results from the device, then it's results would always be negligible.

^On his website I do appreciate the fact that he has a forum for negative reviews. I personally agree with his theory more so than any others. At least for now.

Edited September 28, 2013 by andy4

[Antilles]

Just as a matter of interest, have any of the members who have posted on this thread, ever been with anyone when he or she has died?

[Frank Merton]

Just as a matter of interest, have any of the members who have posted on this thread, ever been with anyone when he or she has died?

During the American war several times but I prefer to block the memory as much as I can. I was also with my wife when she died.

[pallidin]

I hope this addresses some of the OP's questions:

The general thrust is that it has something to do with the infamous "Schrödinger's cat" thought experiment.

What most people do not know is that this thought experiment was NOT trying to prove the experiment, rather to prove the occassional absurdity of human critical thinking.

That is, the cat IS strictly either dead or alive immediately after the fatal or non-fatal random event inside the box before it is observed. The cat DOES NOT exist in a state of superposition prior to observation, regardless of continual urban legend.

To quote Einstein in a letter to Schrödinger:

"You are the only contemporary physicist, besides Laue, who sees that one cannot get around the assumption of reality, if only one is honest. Most of them simply do not see what sort of risky game they are playing with reality—reality as something independent of what is experimentally established. Their interpretation is, however, refuted most elegantly by your system of radioactive atom + amplifier + charge of gunpowder + cat in a box, in which the psi-function of the system contains both the cat alive and blown to bits. Nobody really doubts that the presence or absence of the cat is something independent of the act of observation.^[4]"

So again, the thought experiment WAS NOT TO SUGGEST IT'S VALIDITY, rather to expose it's absurdity, as agreed by Einstein.

Edited September 28, 2013 by pallidin

[Frank Merton]

The problem is that other physicists who didn't agree with Einstein were willing to accept that the cat might be in an indefinite state of neither alive nor dead but either or both or neither or whatever. As such it does not succeed in exposing anything's absurdity.

[pallidin]

The problem is that other physicists who didn't agree with Einstein were willing to accept that the cat might be in an indefinite state of neither alive nor dead but either or both or neither or whatever. As such it does not succeed in exposing anything's absurdity.

I understand the differing "schools of thought" regarding quantum interpretation. And, quite frankly, I think it's healthy.

But, I will say this: If I were placed alive into a sealed coffin that I would die in a short time, regardless of if someone opened it and observed me after a medically lethal timeframe.

After 5-hours(or likely much less) there is NO CHANCE AT ALL that I would still be alive.

In fact, this was actually studied with live rats I think(sorry, don't have the link off-hand) and it was found that if a "quantum superposition" occured during the coffin moment, no decay should be detectable. The exact opposite was found; biological decay was consistent with death before observation.

Edited September 28, 2013 by pallidin

[Rlyeh]

Alright I've done some thinking about this. Regardless of the measuring devices, aren't we the ones measuring the measuring devices? Without our consciousness, there would be no need for a measuring device, because it wouldn't be necessary. If you never saw the results from the device, then it's results would always be negligible.

This doesn't change that the wave collapse or decoherence has already taken place.

^On his website I do appreciate the fact that he has a forum for negative reviews. I personally agree with his theory more so than any others. At least for now.

There are better theories.