I'm approaching this as a sociologist with some physics background so I'm focusing on what the behavior system perceives ("measures"). If all possible worlds exist in a superpositional state, then the behavior system should likewise exist in a superpositional state. If there are say, 10 possible "worlds" available to the behavioral state (percipient) but each world differs from the other by elements that are not observed by the percipient, then the behavior system is under the assumption that interaction is taking place with a single, unified environment.

Recalling the Copenhagen interpretation: does Chicago exist if you happen to be by yourself in a hotel room in Des Plaines, IL? The answer is irrelevant until the behavior system begins to experience some aspect of Chicago.

What if Deutsch is incorrect about contact between the various worlds? Suppose the behavior system normally exists across a manifold of closely-linked probabilities, with the similarities forming a central tendency and the differences existing at each edge of the distribution? If the behavior system can perceive only a small chunk of information at a time, then it may be possible that each percipient really does live in his or her own little world---a small island of similar probabilities made"real" from the larger cloud of probabilities.

If we quantify a behavior system in terms of elements and interactions between elements, we arrive at a complex, but definable state. If that behavior system exists across multiple worlds that differ in minute details (i.e. a unobserved kitchen saucer moved an inch to the side) then the behavior systems would exist as identical entities (or, as my friend Giu P. would say, *shadows*) across the similar "sections." Employing a little math, the behavior system could exist as an object in Z space--not too different than a fibre bundle in topology. Differences among the realized probabilities among these "shadow worlds" might show up at each end of the normal distribution, but may be still be perceived by the behavior system as guesses or hunches, depending upon where the primary centre of the behavioral bundle is at the time. Psychology experiments in the 1980s suggest (to me anyway) that a psychological mechanism has evolved that helps the behavioral system "negotiate" this territory.

Bottom line, it may be useful to take a step back and challenge some of our primary assumptions---namely, that we exist in a discrete world in the multiverse and that we can never "step" into the one next door. That is, we may be wondering why we can't visit the next room, when in fact, we inhabit the entire neighborhood.

RMiller





Reply via email to