Re: Equivalence

From: Stephen Paul King <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:23:28 -0400

Dear R.,

    You make a very good point, one that I was hoping to communicate but
failed. The notion of making copies is only coherent if and when we can
compare the copied produce to each other. Failing to be able to do this,
what remains? Your suggestion seems to imply that "precognition, coincidence
and "synchronicity"" are some form "resonance" between decohered QM systems.
Could it be that decoherence is not an "all or nothing" process; could it be
that some 'parts' of a QM system decohere with respect to each other while
others do not and/or that decoherence might occur at differing rates within
a QM system?

Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: "rmiller" <rmiller.domain.name.hidden>
To: "Stathis Papaioannou" <stathispapaioannou.domain.name.hidden>;
<stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>; <everything-list.domain.name.hidden.com>
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 1:07 AM
Subject: Equivalence


> 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 - 11:28:38 PDT