Re: Equivalence

From: rmiller <rmiller.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 11:27:25 -0500

At 10:23 AM 6/3/2005, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>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

Yes, that's what I am suggesting. The rates may remain constant---i.e.
less than a few milliseconds (as Patrick L. earlier noted) however, I
suspect there is a topology where regions of decoherence coexist and border
regions of coherence. An optics experiment might be able to test this (if
it hasn't been done already), and it might be experimentally testable as a
psychology experiment.

RM





>----- 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 - 12:29:22 PDT