Michael Mensky and MWI

[Anthony Peake]

Whilst on holiday in Greece I read a fascinating book entitled Hidden Dimensions - The Unification of Physics and Consciousness written by Dr. B. Alan Wallace. I find this an absolutely fascinating book that is well worth checking out.

However what really caught my eye in this book was a reference to the work of Michael Mensky. Philosopher Mensky has extended Everett's "Many World's Interpretation" (MWI) and in doing so, in my opinion, suggests a wonderfully itladian slant that gives yet another solution to the implied solipsism of ITLAD/CTF.

You will recall that according to Everett at any act of observation the wave function is not collapsed by that observation but the wave function continues with the the act of measurement (observation) dividing the quantum world into alternative classical worlds, all equally "real". The observer subjectively perceives only one classical world, namely that of everyday experience. However all the other worlds also exist. Now the issue here is that each alternate world must, by logic. also contain an "observer", many replicas of the person who existed prior to the act of observation.... and each one of these replicas believes that they are the continuity of subjective consciousness.

Mensky asks the simple question: What happens to the observer's consciousness when such a measurement takes place? He states that every observer sees only one result ... meaning that a choice of one alternative reality out of all the possibilities must be made. Mensky suggests the following itladian solution:

"All alternatives are realised, and the observer's consciousness splits between these alternatives. At the same time, the individual consciousness of the observer subjectively perceives what is going on in such a way as if there exists only one alternative, the one she exists in. In other words, the consciousness as a whole splits between the alternatives but the individual consciousness subjectively chooses (selects) one alternative".

By this he is suggesting that the the observer's brain and the observed system are synchronistically entangled.

Now what is exciting is how Dr. Wallace interprets Mensky’s idea. He writes:

‘Unlike inanimate matter, every conscious living being perceives the quantum world, with its characteristic nonlocality, relative to its own cognitive frame of reference. Each of these individual classical projections is “locally predictable”, and in each case one, a conscious being realises a world of living experience. And each such classical world exists only relative to such a being or community of beings.” (page 82)

And in this way Wallace and Mensky explain how all “observers” within the same cognitive framework perceive the same things and in doing so ensure that their observations are consistent. Indeed he goes on to suggest that the selection of reality is made taking into account the preferences or psychological state of that observer:

‘So it is possible that by choosing a classical world according to our interests, we may affect the probability of which alternative we observe.”

Wallace then presents the most amazing quote from Mensky:

‘If, for instance, a close relative dies in one of these realities and remains alive in another, the conscious subject is highly motivated to select the latter alternative. If he believes in this case that he is able to affect the selection, it is not inconceivable that he will actually increase the probability to some extent that he will witness precisely the latter alternative’.

Of course within ITLAD/CTF the choice is assisted by a “precognition” or “hunch” injected into Eidolonic awareness by the Daemon who is already aware, having followed through the alternative scenarios in previous runs of the Bohmian IMAX.

Wallace makes an interesting observation that this may explain such mysteries as the “placebo effect”.

I would add that this may also explain the “Law of Attraction” (Ed, is this how you always find a parking space?)

Now for a true (and well documented) personal example. For the last eight years I have never had a plane seat that has not been over the wing! This has become far more than a joke with my wife, family and close friends. I have flown approximately 50 individual sectors in that period and every flight is the same …. I get a window seat and look out on the wing….with one exception, and only one. Four years ago I flew to Greece with my mother and wife-to-be to make arrangements for our forthcoming marriage on the island of Halki. I gave my mother the window seat. And guess what ….. you guessed it. We were off the wing!

I have calculated that on any one flight there is a rough average of 70 window seats on an average size plane.(737-800). 16 of these will be on the wing. So I have a 1 in 4.375 of being allocated a window seat on a wing. So on average I should be off the wing 3 flights in every 4. But I have been on the wing 50 times out of 50 !

Is this evidence of my negativity (I now expect to be on the wing?) that places me always in the universe where I am on the wing?

Will my universe now change because I have recognised why this is happening? Penny and I are off to Denver in a few weeks time. Let’s see what happens!!!

References:
Wallace, B Alan – Hidden Dimensions – The Unification of Physics And Consciousness (Columbia University Press) – isbn: 9780231141505.

Mensky, Michael B – Concept of Consciousness in the Context of Quantum Mechanics (Physics-Usekki 48, no. 4 (2005): 389-409

[Black Label]

Hi Anthony,

I emailed you a few months ago and have finally joined up here tonight. It was this post in particular that caught my eye.

I have introduced myself in the newcomers' section and stated that I am pretty much convinced by MWI.

I would argue that what is suggested in the post above is certainly true.

What exists outside of our observation is a wavefunction with a variety of outcomes in superposition. The 'observing' of one outcome is a product of our brains. I would argue that what goes in through our senses is that superposition,while it is a process within our brains that creates the illusion of just one outcome which is then presented back to our senses (obviously there are very many of each of us experiencing different outcomes etc).

But it seems to make sense that if our brains are seeing all those outcomes then they can, to some extent, 'home in', if you like, on particular ones and make them subjectively more likely. I am touching wood here, but I have-so far-not, for example, suffered a tragic loss of a loved one in my life. Anyone who I have seen died has either been someone who I wasn't close to or someone who was ill and old so I could accept their passing. In my timeline, things always seem to turn out OK for me and indeed the people to whom I am close enough to be affected by if anything bad happened to them.

Is this because my subconscious is 'selecting' these positive timelines and subjectively amplifying them for me? It is certainly a possibility.

Unfortunately, the ability to ‘select’ from the wave function is limited. Our brains perform about 2 billion calculations a second while our wave function is almost infinitely large. So locating the part of it where we win the lottery would be tricky, even if we could isolate the part of our brain that is performing any wave function vetting process.

However, last night a colleague at work who drives me home wanted go first to try and see that whale that had swam up the Clyde. I wasn’t keen as it was rainy and 2am but I agreed anyway, believing that I could find myself in a reality where she changed her mind and just headed straight home. Which she did!

So yes, I believe that this kind of thing works. But it would be interesting to find out how to further ‘hone’ the skill.

[A Dark Philosopher]

What exists outside of our observation is a wavefunction with a variety of outcomes in superposition. The 'observing' of one outcome is a product of our brains. I would argue that what goes in through our senses is that superposition,while it is a process within our brains that creates the illusion of just one outcome which is then presented back to our senses (obviously there are very many of each of us experiencing different outcomes etc).

Absolutely! Now, the question arises just what happens to all the un-observed potentials?

Do they remain as some fuzzy Probability Density Function around the collapsed reality?
Are they played out individually in their own observed universe?
Or are they manifests of individual minds?

For a possible solution, see our Peake-Le Marcs Yapping Dog Experiment adaption of the now legendary Schrodinger's Cat gedankenexperiment.

[Anthony Peake]

Hi "Black Label" and welcome.

As I recall that name used to be a brand of lager over here in the UK!

Great to have you involved.

I have recently been in contact with American physicist Thomas Campbell. Tom and I had been intoduced by another member of this FORUM, Stephen Cinnamond (thanks Stephen). Tom is due over in the UK in October and will be giving lectures on the 10th and 11th of October and had approached another member of this FORUM (Susan Marie) to do the publicity. This is again one of those amazing synchronicities that we are so used to on this FORUM because Tom had no idea of my link with Susan and how she did such a wonderful job of publicising my New York talk in early August.

But the synchronicities do not stop there. Tom's overall concept is termed "My Big Toe" and is an attempt to link philosophy, physics and metaphysics. This is rather similar to another BIGTOE that is regularly discussed on this FORUM (the Bohmian Imax Grand Theory of Everything).

Tom and I have now swapped books. He has recently received copies of ITLAD and "The Daemon" and he has sent me all three of his "My Big Toe" books and they arrived the day before I flew to Denver. I read the first one in the taxi down to Heathrow (a long journey).

I am now really looking forward to the next two books. Tom's ideas are absolutely itladian in their concept and execution and I am very excited as to what he will make of my work.

I am sure that when he becomes aware of BIGTOE .... and Karl's "Collapsing The Consciouness Wave" (CtCw) as well I am hopeful that he may be motivated to join us here and add his opinions and ideas (and, as a person who actually worked with Robert Monroe, Tom may be able to contribute something even more fascinating).

[A Dark Philosopher]

Hi "Black Label" and welcome.
As I recall that name used to be a brand of lager over here in the UK!

I am sure that when he becomes aware of BIGTOE .... and Karl's "Collapsing The Consciouness Wave" (CtCw) as well I am hopeful that he may be motivated to join us here and add his opinions and ideas (and, as a person who actually worked with Robert Monroe, Tom may be able to contribute something even more fascinating).

Karl - ing Black Label!

[Black Label]

r

By this he is suggesting that the the observer's brain and the observed system are synchronistically entangled.

Thank you both for your positive responses to my initial posts.

I think this could work in a couple of ways.

As well as our brains "seeing" the quantum paths ahead and favouring one over another, an even more straightforward explanation could be offered by decoherence.

When we look at a system, let's just say a real life Schrdingers' Cat/ yapping Dog type experiment, our brains as measuring devices are part of that decoherence as the atoms within them form different patterns for a dead animal/live animal when the results are recorded.

If, however, we are expecting a result (e.g. being placed on the wing of a plane), then our brains have already formed the atom pattern relative to that outcome. Arguably it is therefore easier for the universe to match us to that quantum outcome, a bit like, to use a crude example, in the way that two pieces of a jigsaw would fit together.

This may well be why 'The Law Of Attraction" involves genuinely believing and acting as if that the outcome is already yours.

Or for that matter, why praying with faith that your prayers will be answered can yield results. Whether or not any deity is actually listening and responding doesn't matter per se. It is the believing in the first place that creates a brain pattern that is more easily matched to that outcome.....which, in MWI is there waiting for you anyway.

If BOTH conscious brain pattern to outcome matching AND subconscious quantum path seeing and chooisng are in play then we as observer individuals may well be subjectively at least a lot more powerful than we think, if only we realise.

Could this mean that there is actually more than a grain of truth to the Jesus Christ story and other suppoosed miracle workers on this particular timeline? Incidentally, I attempted this technique at work tonight to win the bonus ball competition...and won! Although did buy three numbers which helped too. I'd better not do it too often, mind;

[A Dark Philosopher]

I think this could work in a couple of ways.
As well as our brains "seeing" the quantum paths ahead and favouring one over another, an even more straightforward explanation could be offered by decoherence.
When we look at a system, let's just say a real life Schrdingers' Cat/ yapping Dog type experiment, our brains as measuring devices are part of that decoherence as the atoms within them form different patterns for a dead animal/live animal when the results are recorded.

There is quite a large problem with looking at decoherence this way. The opposite of decoherence is coherence, that interconnectivity and dynamic symbiosis of all parts to construct the whole. The unified system would de-cohere when the field of potential interracts with a functioning Consciousness, which then literally takes a snap-shot of the pulsating energy to solidify that observation into a 'moment' in space and time which appears isolated to that subjective consciousness which observed it. Our brains are indeed part of that decoherence, but an a posteriori part.

If, however, we are expecting a result (e.g. being placed on the wing of a plane), then our brains have already formed the atom pattern relative to that outcome. Arguably it is therefore easier for the universe to match us to that quantum outcome, a bit like, to use a crude example, in the way that two pieces of a jigsaw would fit together.

Quantum energy effects suggest that "like in-forms like", or to put it simply, negative energy would attract negative energy and positive energy would attract positive energy. An interesting word in this part of your comment is "expecting". What do we mean by "expecting"? And how does the concept of a) The Daemon, b) Cheating The Ferryman and c) Collapsing the Consciousness wave affect this? Does one "expect" because there is a part of our subjective consciousness that is aware of the future? Does one "expect" because we are living our lives again in a Bohmian IMAX recurrence and are thus replaying an event already experienced? Or does one "expect" because of energy attraction and confirmation bias; what one wishes to perceive is easier to see than what one wishes not to.

This may well be why 'The Law Of Attraction" involves genuinely believing and acting as if that the outcome is already yours.
Or for that matter, why praying with faith that your prayers will be answered can yield results. Whether or not any deity is actually listening and responding doesn't matter per se. It is the believing in the first place that creates a brain pattern that is more easily matched to that outcome.....which, in MWI is there waiting for you anyway.

I suggest you move away from describing phenomena such as this as "brain pattern" as that implies a hugely materialistic determinism to functioning consciousness and will immediately be jumped on by the skeptics with the usual "Hard Problems" of Consciousness questions initially suggested by David Chalmers which I'm happy to go into should you wish, but they are probably more suitable to the Consciousness section. Essentially it boils down to the question, how does something as immaterial as consciousness arise from something as unconscious as matter? But again, a discussion more suited to the Consciousness section than Quantum Mechanics.

I certainly agree with you though that this is how such things as The Law of Attraction, Positive Thinking, Cosmic Ordering, Intercessory Prayer etc function. MWI suggests that whether 'today' is going to be a 'bad' day or a 'good' day for you is potentially hugely dependent on how 'you' observe it, after all the mind can alter how we perceive things, just look at any number of visual illusions for proof of that. Of course, MMI, then introduces the functioning concept of other minds who can always influence your day in ways that you may not have envisaged. Such is life....

If BOTH conscious brain pattern to outcome matching AND subconscious quantum path seeing and chooisng are in play then we as observer individuals may well be subjectively at least a lot more powerful than we think, if only we realise.
Could this mean that there is actually more than a grain of truth to the Jesus Christ story and other suppoosed miracle workers on this particular timeline? Incidentally, I attempted this technique at work tonight to win the bonus ball competition...and won! Although did buy three numbers which helped too. I'd better not do it too often, mind;

It's all similar to my Kangaroo Paradox, when we 'expect' something it is basic psychology that then creates a confirmation bias and our perception finds all elements that concur with that expectation and shoves under the metaphorical carpet all those elements which contradict the expectation. However, as I assert in CtCw that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration and that ultimately we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively as collapsed particles of consciousness from the objective consciousness wave I certainly believe that all energy in-forms all other energy, much the same way that if you drop two pebbles at different places in a pond, their waves will, at some point, meet, these will create an interference pattern and each will in-form the other through this. This is pure Consciousness to me and I describe these "brain patterns" you mention as "meta-consciousness".

[Black Label]

Having now got round to reading a copy of the book in question, I have a couple of thoughts and questions on Mensky’s extention of MWI, the basic premise of which being that at a fork in the quantum road we-at least from a first person perspective-are motivated to select a path that suits our interests. So if a close relative dies in one reality and lives in another then we are subjectively more likely to witness the ‘staying alive’ branch, and if we believe in this theory in the first place then this in itself enhances this scenario.

This resonates with me as I *know* that I am a first person quantum observer who seemingly leads the charmed life that Anthony also alludes to in ITLAD.

My first question is….how MUCH more likely am I to experience the fortunate fork in the road? If there is a situation where someone close dies with 50% probability, what would be my own subjective likeliehood of seeing it? A possible answer of sorts might be that many death situations are in themselves individually relatively low probability events when taken on their own so are relatively easy to avoid (assuming that your subconscious has the ability to vet them out for you)

My other pondering is, if I indeed lead such a charmed life then who are these people who I encounter or hear about who have had unlucky or even tragic lives?

Suppose a consciousness is at, let’s call it point A, and ahead are points B1 and B2. The consciousness/Daemon selects point B1 as the outcome it wants to observe for whatever reason. However presumably a version of that person also goes on to outcome B2. So, is the version that goes on to B2 conscious at all? Are they merely third party players in other peoples’ first person consciousness timelines? Or are they ‘replicas’ who instantaneously spring up with a new consciousness to follow the alternative path from the one the ‘original’ consciousness broke off from? Perhaps very unlucky people are in fact just replicas of replicas of replicas etc from whom the 'main' consciousness has long since branched away from onto a far more charmed first person timeline.

[Anthony Peake]

Black Label,

Welcome back. As always a fascinating and well-pondered analysis of both the implications of Mensky's position on this and the links to itlad.

I suppose this all boils down to the assumption that each evolving consciousness is a fragment rather than a whole as a a part of the image of a hologram also contains the whole picture. It may be that all the versions of ourselves are both collectively and individually the whole being. Indeed this brings us back to another developing topic on this FORUM, the concept of the "Uber-Daemon" of the existence of the "Pandaemonium" as the back-drop of everything that is known. The Akashic Record or Karl L LeMarc's "Consciousness Wave".

Tony

[Black Label]

Black Label,

Welcome back. As always a fascinating and well-pondered analysis of both the implications of Mensky's position on this and the links to itlad.

I suppose this all boils down to the assumption that each evolving consciousness is a fragment rather than a whole as a a part of the image of a hologram also contains the whole picture. It may be that all the versions of ourselves are both collectively and individually the whole being.

Thank you again for your positive remarks. I have never really been away as am a regular ‘lurker’.

In response to your point above, even if the consciousness is a ‘whole’ rather than fragmented, I have thought of a possible way in which this may not negate the theory and might even support it.

A simple analogy being that as a supposed single consciousness within a single reality I have a great degree of freedom. For example, I am currently focusing on typing this response and looking at a computer…..out the corner of my eye I can see a work colleague having lunch……and so on.

So could it be that my combined ‘whole’ consciousness across the numerous “me’s”, operating withing a more complex multi-dimensional space has a similar level of freedom over what to ‘observe’?

That said, the higher the ‘probability’ of a forthcoming event the more difficult it becomes for the consciousness to ignore it…..like the sun rising in the morning, to use an obvious example. But perhaps lower probability events are easier for a consciousness to screen out if it doesn’t want to experience them.