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
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.
- Sociological approach rmiller