Some experiments and experiences can be interpreted as evidence for the existence of “parallel worlds” (Hugh Everett's “many-world interpretation” of quantum mechanics), as well as how choice and free will have their parts in this.
1/25/2019 9:30 a.m.
Leisurely Saturday morning. So maybe we can talk about this: I have been studying in quantum mechanics (QM) Hugh Everett’s “many-word-interpretation,” or rather as he originally called it the “relative state theory.” [which could be described as the scientific basis for the existence of parallel worlds or alternate realties].
And yesterday, I read David Deutsch’s expose on the many-mind variant of that theory. In this, he makes two statements which startled me at first, but I can see their validity:
- Bohm/DeBrogli’s pilot wave interpretation is also a many-world interpretation. [I will not go into this in this article]
- AND, we can see scarce evidence for a multiverse in our everyday experience as well: The double split experiment! And a day before I read this, I had just thought about how one might be able to explain the double slit experiment through parallel universes (i.e. Everett’s theory).
So I would like to talk about parallel universes – for lack of better term – and if we can ever see evidence for them?
The Club: That’s a very good and vast topic.
We argue, you have already seen many evidences of these. [Read the article on pre-precussions and cross-percussions.]
Only, you took some of them as being separated in time (like B’s shoes), but also things like clairvoyance or impulses: in some cases these were instigated by us, in others by your own parallel lives.
This is the “bleed through effect,” because ultimately all is not just connected, but one – in what you call the cosmic hologram, the infinite ocean of all possibilities, or All-that-Is, and now [after Everett] the universal wave function or quantum superposition.
Because you only live in one “slice” of it all [Deutsch called it a manifold, which implies branching], the boundaries are sometimes fuzzy and other states can come through. In QM terms, there is still a correlation between this life, this moment, this configuration and those of other lives.
Now, Deutsch brings up the notion that the double slit experiment IS proof of this. If a single photon is passed through, you still get the interference effect like the wave passing through, which can, as he stated, be computed using real world [classical] optical mechanics. True.
And yet, you only see the photon appear in one spot – which is called in other theories the collapse of the wave function [like in the Copenhagen interpretation]. But in the parallel- or many-world interpretation all possible spots are there, taken, by various other instances, lives, and so on.
But then we have the notion of free will, of choice. Then, who or what takes that choice? The photon, or the observer (me), thereby setting up the current version [of the word]?
It would have to be both, right? Since it really is just one, the distinction between observer and observed is but superficial.
In a way, this is what bothers me [about Everett’s theory], in that the theory still has this dichotomy or dualism, observer and particle.
Yes, but they are correlated! You see, they all are there in the global superposition (hologram), united already. The moment only brings them out superficially – otherwise you could not be conscious of it AS an observer.*
*[As I write this, this reminds me of how matter and consciousness are churned out together. In Everett’s theory, by having both one part be the observer with a memory, and the other the observed matter, both parts would indeed be brought out! ]
This is the switch: it is not that the wave function continues to branch, and creates new, but that it is all there and or a moment the observer and observed separate out into correlated [or “relative”] sub-states. That is how consciousness works.
Furthermore it is not just the observer and photon that interact in the double slit experiment, but the photon and the recording plate. Here, the question is, what or who is the observer? *[See Wiegner’s friend paradox, Schrödinger’s cat paradox].
But just as that photographic plate is a sort of observer, a wall on the house is “an observer” that observes the sunshine hitting it.*
*[One might think a wall has no memory, so how can it be an observer? However, I can see how over the years the sun has bleached or lessened the intensity of the paint on my house's facade, so that could be seen as some sort of memory effect, it’s just very minor].
Remember, we said that consciousness is at each level, even the atomic ones. So here, all these interactions occur, and relative states become formed, which then get setup “as parallel worlds.”
And the thing about branching: yes, and now. Remember, it is all there already in all combinations.
So it depends on how you look at it. You could say it branches, but also that it combines later again.
Right, even Everett alluded to that, also that the branch can and does go both ways in time.*
*[Barret/Byrne: Everett’s long thesis “Theory of the universal wave function,” p. 129; Everett's comments on Bell’s paper: “branch both ways,”: and based on which basis you pick. This would be in accordance with all of classical mechanics or most of physics, which for the most part is time reversible.]
As it is all already one. The branches only happen at the observer level. Now, electrons only come into existence [as particles] for a short moment, so their lifespan is limited.
You are going into the fact that at this level there is awareness and choosing, but the recorded branch time is very limited.
Lost it… Re-concentrating.
Not surprising, this is deep stuff to consider.
So who am I talking to now? In the last session you said that previously strands only have a limited awareness, too, but now we are going deeper.
This is still limited, but based on your own new deeper awareness. There are other strands that are part of us and you, that do have such insights, even up to the level of oversouls and beyond. There are ways to tap into this, but it does take a place in your mind to stand on. We can only add so much, or you can add by learning more, and asking questions, based on your current understanding.
OK, that seems like a good place to stop. Much to process. Thank you.
Namaste — I and the Divine in me bow to You and the Divine in You.
Copyright © Hanns-Oskar Porr