A discussion whether the many-minds interpretation of quantum mechanics is in fact not the same as the man-minds interpretation.
Watch me run the ship aground in this session, by finding a contradiction which has brought the whole process to grinding halt... so far.
Back to work day, after the long Easter holiday. Sunny and cool, sitting outside, bundled up.
So I have a topic lined up, actually several.
We can start, we know what’s on your mind. (smiling)
So this one is kind of speculative. We had stated that branching happens at the mind level, not the world level. But with all this talk about “particular IS identity,” I wonder if many minds is not the same as many worlds? *
*[The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (MW I), and one of its variants, the many minds interpretation (MMI) ]
Bravo […], maybe you ARE learning.
Thanks. So when we look up Everett’s formula*, it goes something like that [simplified], when a new state is observed (Mental observation M), such as spin up or down of some electron ‘x’, then
Total-System-State(X, Mental) = c1 ↑x Mental(....,↑x) + c2 ↓x Mental(…↓x) + ……
Anyways, the superposition is of both the eigenstates (of system X) and their observation (marked by Mental(...), where '...' indicate that memory contains a lot more), and the observer then only knows that either one has happened**
*[Hugh Everett's PHD thesis, 1957, which became the basis for the "many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics", as it was termed later by Paul DeWitt.]
**[that is precisely the argument of the many-worlds/minds interpretation: instead of the collapse of the wave function into ONE of its eigenstates (that is either the left or right side above), all are in fact in existence, yet the observer only realizes or sees the particular branch they are on.]
[...] Fine, let’s go with this, even though it may not be fully complete.
First, note how there is not every event in the universe here. It is only those events that the observer is aware of, spin up/down in this case. So the notion of mind is clearly in here. [The two are "entangled," as pointed out in the followup later that day]
Second, yes, in that case, since mind and that event ARE correlated [or entangled], you can say that the branch happens at the world level or the mind level. Once the state is observed, the two are correlated [or entangled].
Third, note how only certain event-states and mind-states are correlated. As we have said, the mind only perceives certain alternatives, possibly not all, and chooses from those.
So in that sense, MWI is MMI.
“In that sense”?
Well, remember you are casting a wholeness into the framework of words and labels, and numbers and formulas, which is based on seeing a world as entities. We talked about that (in our discussions on mathematics).
So there are natural limitations, even so far as whatever model you have can never grasp the whole “secret” (we talked about that).
So, you can only see the world/whole/mind given some assumptions.
Yes. I just got another point about this formula [the “total system state” above], though. Want me to state it?
Fourth, note how in this formula, we have both mind and matter. This is exactly what the notion of churning stated: that consciousness and mind are initially contained in some joined state, and only through churning are they brought out.
So now, let’s back up. We said, and that was the experience, that the all [the whole] contains the parts, and the part contain the all/whole. Thus, in this, all possible states of mind and matter are contained. All!
So, even if some electron in a faraway galaxy goes spin up or spin-down, it is in there.
And, the various levels of consciousness regarding that electron going, say, spin-down – including the electron’s own consciousness of that state, or your own mental state (which would not know or care about an event [so far away] ), or some other higher level observer on that faraway planet looking directly at that electron – but they are all in there!
Now, the other thing we talked about is that these correlations, choices, alternatives, only happen at the level that is relevant [for that level of consciousness]. So the fact that some electron flips (its spin) in some far away galaxy is not relevant for your level [here/now].
You care about, “do I get up and get more coffee now?” [well, yeah, it is early on a chilly morning], and then you do it or you do not.
So we talked about how choice happens at that level and then the total situation falls into place and deals with it.
Fine. BUT if I choose to remain seated here, and not get up, are there then not billions of other worlds possible around me, with various electrons which “I do not care about” branching by themselves, and setting up infinite future worlds for me, that eventually I have to deal with somehow [in some respective variant branch] ?
Yes, and they are all there in the whole, contained in that choice.
Hmmm, so what is the difference then, really, if the world branches or my mind?
Really, this moment here IS the total situation, brought about by the total state of the universes. Even though “I deal only with these local alternatives.”
Ah, and now we have a contradiction, and the line goes silent.
Not so much that, as you get anxious again, and don’t let it flow. What is best at these times, to just sit back and let it all sink in some more.
It seems the only way out of this is if the mind actually chooses a complete state of the whole universe, and thereby we do have MWI.
The crux [for you] is: how can a mind choosing at a higher level imply a certain set of all events in the universe [some universal state], smiling?
That’s where the difference is, yes.
So let’s think on this.
I keep getting, “the particular is identity,” and “relativity,” as in Einstein’s special relativity [which proved there is no universal now, so how can there be a universal state? ]
Food for though.
Let’s stop. Not sure if we hit a deadend.
Oh, why so glum? OK, let’s stop.
Added note: the seeming contradiction was eventually resolved a few days later.
Namaste — I and the Divine in me bow to You and the Divine in You.
Copyright © Hanns-Oskar Porr