Quantum Immortality
Quantum Immortality
“All possible outcomes of quantum measurements are physically realized in some ‘world’ or universe.”
—Max Tegmark
Quantum Immortality
In quantum physics (the absolute smallest realm of how the universe operates), everything appears to exist as probabilities rather than particles being in precise locations—until measured, that is.
In 1804, Thomas Young discovered that light behaves like waves of water in his famous double-slit experiment. Einstein later demonstrated that light also behaved as particles in 1905, but the wave nature of light was re-demonstrated by G.I. Taylor in 1909. More astoundingly, Claus Jönsson later demonstrated that this also applied to electrons in 1959, and not simply light photons. Then in 1974, this was yet again demonstrated by Pier Giorgio Merli, Gian Franco Missiroli, and Giulio Pozzi as they fired single electrons one at a time in a similar experiment and still yet came to the same results. Together, they solidify without a doubt that a single particle’s possibilities can interfere with itself and provide all new possibilities.
To understand what this means and the enormity of this conclusion, allow me to explain the general setup. Imagine two vertical slits cut into a piece of cardboard with some reactive film a short distance behind it. If shooting particles through the slits, the film would be expected to light up where the particle hits and provide evidence of which slit it went through. We might then expect there to be two vertical lines of impact points on the reactive film behind the slits after firing many electrons. Instead, there were many such vertical lines as if there were more than two slits to pass through.
These experiments demonstrate that the electron did not simply go through one slit, and in fact it did not even go through both slits as particles. It may be said that the particle itself did not take any path per se. Each single electron particle behaved as if it went through both slits as a wave of water might. The particle had the opportunity, or probability, of going through either slit and at any position within those slits. That wave of probabilities passed through both slits simultaneously and created interfering probability waves of where it could be coming out of the slits on the other side.
Imagine if a single wave of water, like from a pebble dropped in a still pond, rolled up to the two slits if placed vertically halfway into the water. The one rolling wave would pass through both slits and two small waves would come out the other sides of the slits. Those waves would widen as they gained distance from the slits and the two widening waves would end up colliding with each other and creating ripples that continue on toward the reactive film. They interfere with each other, ripple into more waves, and interfere again and again. Those many ripples create that distinctive set of many vertical lines known as an interference pattern.
This is the behavior that was seen even as single particles were shot individually at the slits. They did not go through one or the other and in fact did not go through either with any defined path. The wave of probabilities of where they could be is what passed through the slits rather than the particle itself. A final determining location was observed at the film, yet no path was absolutely taken.
If one tried to observe which of the two slits the particle went through, that interaction would itself break the probability wave early and we end up seeing the two vertical lines on the film as we would otherwise have expected. Once observed, a definitive location exists—but no sooner. Until observation, it exists as a wave of probabilities which interferes even with itself.
So, what does this even mean? Some physicists conclude that reality is best understood as probability rather than as any single state of existence. There may very well be no single truth of what did happen and we simply instead experience one of the many options that were feasible. Perhaps nothing exists as much as it is simply probable to exist. How a single potential is experienced by any particular onlooker is entirely up to speculation. And how can mere probabilities interact with each other…? The mind simply explodes at the thought.
Interaction with particles is what causes particles to pick a definitive location, but how can an interaction occur if it is not yet determined where it exists? Perhaps any and all possibilities occur, and we simply see only one of the outcomes, but what makes us experience one over the other? No one really knows.
Some physicists theorize that versions of us must exist who experience all the options and our experience is just one of infinite others. But what does this mean for who we are? Are there infinite versions of each of us? This is known as the many worlds theory. Physics is still in full operation, but all the options that could have happened indeed happened. Or, perhaps, they didn’t occur and all options only ever exist as probabilities with one defined output of reality.
Many worlds theory leads some to a concept called quantum immortality. While I, in my experience, may have experienced one outcome, there may very well be another version of me that experienced a different outcome. Without a solid understanding of what makes me a conscious entity experiencing anything at all, it is quite possible that I, as a consciousness, only truly experience one of the infinite options. Since I can only experience options in which I am alive, I naturally do not experience the paths where I am no longer alive, but then why wouldn’t I be present for a path in which I am still alive?
What this would mean is that I would ultimately live and experience my longest possible timeline. Typically, this would mean experiencing my best life given that stress, pain, and suffering tend to limit our lifespan as previously expressed, and emotional regulation tends to reverse those outcomes. Therefore, if we have experienced things we wish we had not experienced up until this point, it is quite possible that those events just happened to be necessary in order for us to live our most fulfilled life.
If this is true, that we experience our best life, then all our fears and worries can disappear. If we trust this theory, nothing should scare us. Losing a job just means it wasn’t the best option—something better must be on the way. If we get into a lawsuit over easement rights on our property with neighbors who only want to see us suffer because they harbor ill will from a past grievance regarding trash cans and being back-charged for unpaid services which forces us to move from our beloved home to a new one, it’s because the new home is going to be such a better fit! That is just hypothetical of course…
Believing in this possibility is exactly the kind of perspective that enables us to generate the mood which can actually bring it about. Instead of just being an empty hope, there is logical and scientific reason to believe the various spiritual ideations and accept this as a potential reality.
But wait, there’s more! Beyond the simple possibility concluded from the unknown, we have actual experimentation to back up the idea that we can alter the course of events with just our minds! Cue the X-Files music.
Back in 1995, René Peoc’h performed an experiment involving baby chicks and a randomly moving robot1. The baby chicks were placed in the dark and a robot with a light would move around via a true-random number generator known as a Tychoscope. During waking hours, the chicks would desire the light to illuminate their area and the test would measure the impact that their emotional desire would have on the robot’s random motion.
Much like the placebo effect, the intention of the chicks (or perhaps even that of the scientists—but certainly someone’s intention) indeed had a statistically significant effect on the movement of the robot. Over the course of 80 tests with the chicks present, 71% of them showed clear biasing of the robot toward the chicks. In 100 control tests without the chicks, it was a 50/50 split of insignificant bias as one might expect.
Moreover, when averaging the robot’s position over all the control trials and comparing them to the average position in the chick trials, it is a rather staggering difference. Imagine a range from -500 to 500 where the chicks are at the 500 mark and the robot can move further or closer (lower or higher value). The average of the control tests was a position of -0.1—essentially right in the middle. The average for all the chick trials, however, was 105.1. The chance of this behavior being random is calculated as being less than 1% which, in statistical terms, is quite significant. Barring any unaccounted-for differences between the control and the experiment, the effect is almost certainly real.
Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) did their own mind-bending experiment using the same random generator and performing virtual coin flips2. Over the course of 12 years and 2.5 million virtual coin flips (randomly selecting 0 or 1) they had similar findings. In these experiments, subjects were to focus on a particular outcome attempting to skew the results. And skew them they did with results being significant enough that the chance of it being accidental was less than a 1 in 15,000 chance possibility.
Much like with the chicks, the effect is small, but it is statistically significant in both cases. There is a real effect being measured. The question is simply a matter of how and why. Intention, not just micro-cues has a noticeable effect on random number generators. While scientists believe they are testing psychokinetic capabilities, I have a slightly different theory that merges the results with the quantum confusion of multiple worlds.
If we assume that indeed all paths are probable and that our consciousness itself only takes one path, it’s prudent to consider how one path might be selected over another. By what mechanism, if not cause and effect, can a path be determined? Knowing that probabilities interfere even with themselves and together with the existence of these expectancy effects, I dare say the mechanism is fairly straight-forward: intention, focus, or belief itself. The question we must ask ourselves after that is simply how to amplify it or make it more consistent. It may be no challenge to guess, but I might propose mood has a lot to do with it.
When we consider timeline selecting, there’s no reason to think our consciousness needs to take the same path as anyone else’s consciousness. My experience can vary from yours. I could be writing to a bunch of simulated replacements of probabilities of paths that everyone else could have taken while their particular experience is somewhere else. On the other hand, perhaps we are each influencing the one single timeline based upon our own intentions and focus—a battle of wills of sorts like Jedi mind tricks.
In the end, just believing that these are possibilities—while knowing for certain that beliefs do impact our reality—can be just enough to keep us going with the mood enhancing outlook to shape our lives for the best. If we keep a rather high-level intention, focus, or belief that things will work out for the best, we won’t be battling any one particular outcome, but enabling all sorts of outcomes in the probability field to drive us down the timelines that best benefit us.
This is the exact framework posed within Zen and the Art of Happiness3 by Chris Prentiss. Chris encourages us to consider that every event that befalls us is absolutely the best possible event that could occur. This ties in quite nicely with everything we just covered. Believing this might very well make it so. His book is a quick read, but it provides some great examples and rationality to take this approach.
While most of this remains in the realm of speculation, there is a known effect at some level, and the possibilities provide useful frameworks through which to hope. Nothing proves the ideas false just yet, they are logically consistent, and quantum physics is just weird enough to make it feasible. Such ideas provide us the permission to believe, and this, in a way, gives us the right to change our outlook and hope for the best.
If a framework provides us with hope and helps us ride the waves of peace, love, and safety, then it’s a great framework from which to guide our paths. The worst case scenario is that we’ve definitely benefited ourselves but only to smaller degrees than hoped. This sounds like a win to me. We just have to make sure that our hopes aren’t treated as guarantees for any specific outcomes and that we don’t get dragged into types of mystical thinking that redirect our focus away from what truly matters: riding the currents of love.