Equivalence

From: rmiller <rmiller.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:07:35 -0500

Equivalence
If the individual exists simultaneously across a many-world manifold, then
how can one even define a "copy?" If the words match at some points and
differ at others, then the personality would at a maximum, do
likewise---though this is not necessary---or, for some perhaps, not even
likely. It's been long established that the inner world we navigate is an
abstraction of the "real thing"---even if the real world only consists of
one version. If it consists of several versions, blended into one another,
then how can we differentiate between them? From a mathematical POV, 200
worlds that are absolute copies of themselves, are equivalent to one world.
If these worlds differ minutely in areas *not encountered or interacted
with by the percipient (individual), then again we have one percipient, one
world-equivalent. I suspect it's not as though we're all run through a
Xerox and distributed to countless (infinite!) places that differ broadly
from one another. I rather think the various worlds we inhabit are
equivalent--and those that differ from one another do by small--though
perceptible---degrees. Some parts of the many-world spectrum are likely
equivalent and others are not. In essence, there are probably zones of
equivalence (your room where there are no outside interferences) and zones
of difference. Even if we did manage to make the copies, then there would
still be areas on the various prints that would be equivalent, i.e. the
same. Those that are different, we would notice and possibly tag these
differences with a term: decoherence. Perhaps that is all there is to
it. If this is the case, it would certainly explain a few things: i.e.
precognition, coincidence and "synchronicity."

R. Miller
Received on Fri Jun 03 2005 - 01:18:10 PDT