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


Reply via email to