Questions and answers about my work on synchronicity to date.

Questions submitted by a reader, Jeff.

Submitted by: Sky NelsonDate: 8-10-11Hello,I have recently come by your theory and the relational interpretation of QM, I find them bothvery fascinating.Q: Why is it that a photon is able to (apparently) 'travel' from point A to point B in any consistent(retro actively determined) direct path? More specifically, in the atmosphere of a given volumeof (apparent) space there are many 'atoms' organized into molecules in the gas phase. Why is itthat the intervening 'atoms' between points A and B do not absorb and emit photons away froman observer's eye in a chaotic or random way for instance?

A: They do. Each atom would have a probability (called a 'cross-section') that determines thelikelihood of interaction. Obviously, the more atoms in the volume of atmosphere, the higher thelikelihood of absorption.

Q: Shouldn't atmospheric gas molecules be observers in their own reference frames? If so whydo they pass a photon on to an animal, human or detecting device in seemingly straighttrajectories with consistency if they are truly in random or deterministically chaotic motion?

A: You are correct, the atoms are observers in their own frame. But, the only way you will ever findout if they have absorbed the light or let it pass by, is by making an observation from your referenceframe. In which case, you will find (with a certain probability) that the atoms in the air eitherretroactively absorbed the light, or that they did not. The consistency you mention is the result of trillions of these events happening every moment, and a certain number of those passing through theair unhindered (based on probability, the number that pass through will be fairly consistent, give thetrillions of photons in the sample).

Q: Perhaps I am not grasping how to view this question in the correct relative framework or MQS? I apologize if this is an ignorant question.

A: Never worry about that. :-)

Q: Also, it looks to me like relativity and QM can be unified if we think of physical reality as aMMORPG-which I very much like the idea of. You only hint at this in passing; but I would loveto hear you expand on this....

A: Yeah, I wish I had been able to make more headway on this. What I wrote in my first paper is:

An interesting parallel of this model with virtual reality programming has been brought to my attention,which may be helpful in understanding the implications of the two postulates. In massive multiplayer online games (MMOGs), there is a common difficulty with synchronizing the actions of a large number of physically distributed players in a real-time virtual world. One technique for dealing with this is called optimistic synchronization (Reiher, n.d., Hsu, Ling, Li, & Kuo, n.d.). Some of the parallels between REDand optimistic synchronization include: The virtual world is only rendered in a definite state from the perspective of each user (relational, Postulate 1); there is no objective definite world, but rather only thecollection of worlds as rendered by all of the various users (Postulate 2); events that are observed incommon between two players must agree on the specific details (consistency).Optimistic synchronization is not proof that the world does work this way, nor could it be a completely correct analog. Yet it may be a useful model which demonstrates the way in which relationality and consistency of histories work together in actual application to create a virtual world.

The actual video game world is only a metaphor for this, because it does not include elements of quantum properties, such as non-commutativity.But I think the concept of a Matrix-like world, following the same general principles of MMORPGsystems, and existing in the realm of "Mind" or the "Fourier realm", is probably the way things reallywork. After all, I like to point out that there are no examples of any being in existence that has twoseparate consciousnesses. We are each endowed with a single perspective on the world, and I thinkthis is a critical part of the design of reality.This then leads to the types of principles I suggest in my paper, about reality only being definite forma single vantage point at a time, and the MMORPG model follows pretty easily.But we will need to do more work, with the help of software developers, to really hash this out.

Q: If you care to speculate on metaphysical and psychological implications if any: To go a littleoff the deep end here, what would this theory imply for dreams and lucid dreams seeing thatthere is no 'light' in our skulls or striking our retinas as our bodies sleep? For that matter how is itthat the world is perceived as 'out there' beyond our skulls in begin with?

A: That's a bit deep, maybe I can take that up in a future conversation. I think that what I call theFourier or Information realm is an alternate/complementary representation of our physical world. It iscomposed of information, or using another word, patterns. It doesn't matter what substance thepatterns are in (the substance is the physical world); rather, the patterns themselves representinformation.Thus the brain is a physical entity which has patterns of electrochemical wave in it, and theinformation in these patterns of waves is represented in the Fourier realm. Probably, the mystery of qualia resides in the Fourier realm, which is inaccessible to physical experiments, or at least notdirectly accessible. Maybe indirect experiments could show its existence, not sure.

Either way, thoughts happen in the Fourier/Information realm. This is what I imagine dreams to be,including lucid dreams. As such, I think we will find that dreams are touching into the vast expanse of possible futures that exist in the Fourier realm. So dreams are not certain visions of reality, but theyexist in the same non-physical space in which the indefinite futures coexist. So dreams are importantand have access to information our waking mind may not. Similarly could be said for our "sense of intuition" in the waking state. (Also I would say, Light has nothing to do with that sense of our innereye.)

Q: And what are the implications for observers and frames of reference when you consider people with multiple personality disorder?(And our own subconscious) For instance it is reportedthat some subpersonalities experience the others as spatially separate, with each a self bodyimage of their own, even when they look in a mirror as I understand...

A: Interesting. I don't know enough about psychology to answer well. I would guess that multiplepersonality disorder doesn't violate the idea of each being having a single seat of consciousness. Iwould say one of the personalities was observing the world in one state, and the other was observingit in a different state, but if they are separate personalities then there has been no information sharedbetween them (by definition). When they share the information with each other (i.e. both observethe same system) they still must always find agreement about the state of the system.Just because the two consciousnesses are in one body doesn't violate this model, I think (if that isindeed what is happening, which I am skeptical of). The model is based on the sharing of informationbetween entities. If the two personalities were considered a single entity, then they must (bydefinition) have the same information about the world (so there would be no disagreement). If theyare considered separate entities, then the rules about sharing information must apply when theyshare the information about what they had observed (i.e. the rule of consistency, that there must beno disagreement).So either way you look at it, there would be no disagreement about the state of an observed system.That is all that matters, I think.

Q: In that same line of thinking, is it correct to say that, for instance, if I (my body) were to be ina room with two others, there would be three versions of me? One perceived by my limited ego-executive self and two other versions of 'me' from their relative perspectives; but nowhere as a physical body existing in absolute form?

A: I don't really agree with that. I think you are still making the assumption of "objective definitereality", in that you are picturing these three objective versions of yourself, and contrasting it with aphysical version of yourself. I think you have to throw out the idea that there are these differentversions existing simultaneously in some objective and definite way. You are throwing out theabsolute physical representation, in favor of yet another representation which treats the differentversions of yourself as absolute.