many worlds
so weird.. i realised a few days ago that my theory of neuropsychology can be explained (or at least justified) by another model...
it's a seemingly unrelated, yet bizarrely interesting modern theory of quantum mechanics, called the many worlds theorem... i've mentioned it many times before -- it was discovered by hugh everett III and was written as his PhD thesis at princeton in 1957. he wrote that theory to account for philosophical (and common-sense) problems with the so-called copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory.
copenhagen describes a kind of spooky action-at-a-distance in observation when measuring states of systems. this action violates a few principles, in particular that of relativity, and re-introduces a concept from medieval "science" (ie the religionists' viewpoint) of vitalism, that humans occupy a special place in the universe above all other items: basically that a system state is indeterminate until someone actually looks at it. it doesn't take much to realise that this idea is strange. after all, why the fuck would a cat in a box (which could be either alive or dead, we just don't know until we open the box) suddenly "collapse" it's state from being 50/50 alive/dead to 100/0 alive/dead or 0/100 alive/dead. why would humans be afforded the unique position to be able to defy this one law of physics? it amounts to saying that reality around us is entirely subject to our perception.
there are other philosophical questions about the issue of perception, for sure, but the main point i'm questioning perception on is with the scientific premise of replicability, which in science basically means that if a theory is true, then whatever the kind of outcome i find here in sydney should be able to be reproduced by anyone anywhere. physics is resoundingly successful with replicability. so if i'm perceiving reality in a particular way, surely there is no guarantee that every other sentient being in the universe also perceives it that same way. there are many ways to show that perception is not shared by different people (more on this some other time). yet copenhagen implies that my subjective perception affects an experimental outcome, an outcome which could be achieved by anyone anywhere; even by a dog given the right training.
if this paradox is not clear to you, then talk to me sometime and i will illustrate it with a simple picture!
anyhoo, so if there is no collapse of the state-function, then what is happening?
many worlds predicts that instead of "collapsing", all of the state-function's various (non-zero) probabilities are realised separately in different universes, each of which branch away at the point of experiment, or observation, or around that time. when this happens is not clear to me yet, but that it does happen seems inevitably true, when you take into account various atomic oddities (that are too bizarre to list here), that show something unusual goes on across the entire universe, in our cells, in everything at the building-block level. i use one such example (the double-slit experiment) below. from all accounts so far that i have read, or derived for myself, there is no way after the "splitting" of so-called parallel universes (orthogonal universes would be a better term) can interact ever again.
forever adrift, another copy of you goes about the rest of their existence, remembering all the same stuff as you do up until that point of departure, thereafter living what may be a similar, but ultimately different life. you will never know their fate any more than they can know yours.
or can you?
if MWT is correct, then it also implies that "separate" universes can interfere, as the simple double-slit experiment of first year university optics experiments shows. a single photon is fired through a double-slit and hits a screen behind. you would think that the screen would show the pattern of a single photon (as a wave, like ripples on a pond), since you sent a single photon. it must have gone through one or other of the slits. but what is observed is interference on the screen. the photon interfered with another photon on the way.
did it?
you can make the experiment as clinical as you like, and it still happens. where is this other photon coming from? this is the splitting point of alternate realities, before choosing which slit, the photon has a 50/50 option. so by MWT, both must be realised in alternate universes. but that we see the interference of both of these photons after the fact, shows that interference between universes is possible and it occurs, even though we still only count a single photon coming through the slit.
how does this relate to neuropsychology?
i suspect that our minds, being a complex computational device (among other things) which channels neurotransmitters along pathways of neurons (nervecells -- half of our body's billions are in the brain), rather like circuits that convey electrons in electronic equipment, can experience a kind of interference between alternate realities.
the few who know what my theory of mind is, will now say "i get it".
i propose that we exist in a symmetry (balance) between two realities. both combine to produce the person that everyone sees when they interact with us. what happens when they go out of sync?
more on this to those who ask the right questions...
© 2004 (concept reserved) jeremy damien nicholas.
it's a seemingly unrelated, yet bizarrely interesting modern theory of quantum mechanics, called the many worlds theorem... i've mentioned it many times before -- it was discovered by hugh everett III and was written as his PhD thesis at princeton in 1957. he wrote that theory to account for philosophical (and common-sense) problems with the so-called copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory.
copenhagen describes a kind of spooky action-at-a-distance in observation when measuring states of systems. this action violates a few principles, in particular that of relativity, and re-introduces a concept from medieval "science" (ie the religionists' viewpoint) of vitalism, that humans occupy a special place in the universe above all other items: basically that a system state is indeterminate until someone actually looks at it. it doesn't take much to realise that this idea is strange. after all, why the fuck would a cat in a box (which could be either alive or dead, we just don't know until we open the box) suddenly "collapse" it's state from being 50/50 alive/dead to 100/0 alive/dead or 0/100 alive/dead. why would humans be afforded the unique position to be able to defy this one law of physics? it amounts to saying that reality around us is entirely subject to our perception.
there are other philosophical questions about the issue of perception, for sure, but the main point i'm questioning perception on is with the scientific premise of replicability, which in science basically means that if a theory is true, then whatever the kind of outcome i find here in sydney should be able to be reproduced by anyone anywhere. physics is resoundingly successful with replicability. so if i'm perceiving reality in a particular way, surely there is no guarantee that every other sentient being in the universe also perceives it that same way. there are many ways to show that perception is not shared by different people (more on this some other time). yet copenhagen implies that my subjective perception affects an experimental outcome, an outcome which could be achieved by anyone anywhere; even by a dog given the right training.
if this paradox is not clear to you, then talk to me sometime and i will illustrate it with a simple picture!
anyhoo, so if there is no collapse of the state-function, then what is happening?
many worlds predicts that instead of "collapsing", all of the state-function's various (non-zero) probabilities are realised separately in different universes, each of which branch away at the point of experiment, or observation, or around that time. when this happens is not clear to me yet, but that it does happen seems inevitably true, when you take into account various atomic oddities (that are too bizarre to list here), that show something unusual goes on across the entire universe, in our cells, in everything at the building-block level. i use one such example (the double-slit experiment) below. from all accounts so far that i have read, or derived for myself, there is no way after the "splitting" of so-called parallel universes (orthogonal universes would be a better term) can interact ever again.
forever adrift, another copy of you goes about the rest of their existence, remembering all the same stuff as you do up until that point of departure, thereafter living what may be a similar, but ultimately different life. you will never know their fate any more than they can know yours.
or can you?
if MWT is correct, then it also implies that "separate" universes can interfere, as the simple double-slit experiment of first year university optics experiments shows. a single photon is fired through a double-slit and hits a screen behind. you would think that the screen would show the pattern of a single photon (as a wave, like ripples on a pond), since you sent a single photon. it must have gone through one or other of the slits. but what is observed is interference on the screen. the photon interfered with another photon on the way.
did it?
you can make the experiment as clinical as you like, and it still happens. where is this other photon coming from? this is the splitting point of alternate realities, before choosing which slit, the photon has a 50/50 option. so by MWT, both must be realised in alternate universes. but that we see the interference of both of these photons after the fact, shows that interference between universes is possible and it occurs, even though we still only count a single photon coming through the slit.
how does this relate to neuropsychology?
i suspect that our minds, being a complex computational device (among other things) which channels neurotransmitters along pathways of neurons (nervecells -- half of our body's billions are in the brain), rather like circuits that convey electrons in electronic equipment, can experience a kind of interference between alternate realities.
the few who know what my theory of mind is, will now say "i get it".
i propose that we exist in a symmetry (balance) between two realities. both combine to produce the person that everyone sees when they interact with us. what happens when they go out of sync?
more on this to those who ask the right questions...
© 2004 (concept reserved) jeremy damien nicholas.