A multiverse view of how the US election might come out

The choice of candidates in the US is certainly important, but toocomplex for this email and not the focus of this list in any case, Instead I ask: How can we connect what we SAY we believe with what we actually expect as individual people (and the groups we are part of)? Many people on earth believe the basic process is very simple. we are at a choice point, our CHOICES matter, but in the end, there is a certain probability that Smithe will win, and a certain probability that ones will win. (I started to type "most people believe," but humans are not so uniform as many believe. I started to say "A"and "B", but "Smith" and "jones" sound more like human.) This TYPE of expectation is wired to some degree into the human brain, We tend to expect that our environment is a LOcal Markov Process (LMP). Even those of us who do NOT believe our cosmosis a local Markov process, at any level of aggregation and approximation, need to know what an LMP is, to have any idea of what is really going on and what might happen to all of us. I am amazed how many people claim to be great experts in Bell's Theorem and Bohmian thinking, without knowing that he "Bell's Theorem" hwihc was first tested in the 1970's was actually the CHSH theorem, the theorem of Clauser, Holt, Shimon and Horne. (Bell's own book, The Speakavle and Unspeakable in Quantum mechanics, is VERY clear about the importance of the CHSH theorem.) Even such famous physicists as 'tHooft had troubles really understanding the meaning of that very clear, precise mathematical theorem. In particular: the theorem says that no mathematically well-defined theory of how our cosmos works can be consistent with cdrtain expeirmentalresults,IF THAT THEORY is a local Markov Process at the level of the variables we use in our model (fields and observations). CHSH used the word "causality"instead of LMP, because they thought it was easier for people to understand, Since few people seem to understand, even though it is such a clear and simple mathematical concept, I will go back to LMP. So what does this have to do with US elections? More than most of us can imagine. You all know some of the basics of the multiverse concepts by now. For those who pay attention to actual experiment, and not historiclegends about Adam and Eve, the flat earth and the great turtle, we know that the most conservagtive, cautious theory of how the cosmos works is psi dot = i H psi, which I have discussed many times. It is appropriate to discuss it many times, since it is today's best conservative mainstream model of what we really know in physics. In the old version of that theory, it is assumed that the US elections may put us into a MIXED state. Reality may split onto two streams. In one of them, trump is elected, and in the other Biden. (Along with a few splinter universes, maybe.) Both get to win, in their own universe. This is how High Everett III actually thought about it when he first came up with the modern mutliverse concept. (Again, if anyone does not believe me, just go to werbos.com/religions.htm, where I give links to papers with ever so many citations, citations which gtree back to original sources.) But Everett was unable to prove that this PICTURE of EMERGENT behavior can actually be deduced from psi dot equals i H psi. It was my paper https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10773-008-9719-9.pdf which explained why gthis was impossible, and how to fix the modeling of objects like polarizers in an expeirment go be consistent with psi dot = i H psi. Very simply: the theory that psi dot equals i H psi REQUIRES us to change our models of objects like polarizers, such that OUR level of experience requires something different from an LMP model. It calls for a more general family of mathematical models, which I call LMRF models, localMarkov Random Fields over space-time. The principles here are so important! B analogy, I remember when a mathematician at the RAND corporation said to me in 1968: "A function of a Markov process is not in general a Markov process." This is absolutely fundamental to reinforcement learning (RLADP), though few of the people who bullshit about AI and alpha Go have any idea of what it really is. But: a function of an LMP is NOT in general an LMP! What we observe is a FUNCTION of the state of our cosmos, not that state itself. Years ago, I believe that our cosmos is governed by an LMP (a slight generalization of Einstein's view), but large scale quantum optics experiments like CHSH require an LMRF model. And I have built and published and posted such models, which reconcile the CHSH experiments with Einstein's ideas. But Einstein did not envision macroscopic Schrodinger cats, or even parallel "universes" with different presidents in them. And so, I will never forget the dramatic day in 2014 when my whole understanding changed, even as it affects US politics and the current election, and the personal fate of the candidates. That day, I had already developed simple MRF input-output models of the polarizers used in Bell's Theorem experiments. such "lumped models" are very common in real empirical electronics and photonics, where people want to get the right prediction at minimum computational cost. But I worked to connect possible models to the actual condensed matter physics On this day, I worked out a model which I called CMRFp, a continuous-time model of what happens form moment to moment in one of the two common types of polarizers (dichroic, like sunglasses). In brief: It is possible that if the cosmos "does not like:" what Smith or Jones WILL do, it can actually rewrite history, not to erase them but to erase their very past, as if they never existed. I think it could happen. Remember: this is the most conservative model!!! Deepak Chopra knows crazier alternatives. ======================================= One of the folks on Yeshua’s list asked a question, and so I have explained a bit more about this: I did not say enough about what really could happen to candidates Smith and ones, according to different theories, and how it connects to Deepak's views. Or the details of what I learned in 2014. The equations of that continuous time MRF model are given in section 3 of Werbos PJ. Stochastic path model of polaroid polarizer for Bell's Theorem and triphoton experiments. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos. 2015 Mar;25(03):1550046. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.649.8389&rep=rep1&type=pdf . Again, this is the model CLOSEST to ordinary common sense consistent with the empirical results well established now in all the many mainstream "Bell's Theorem" experiments. Note that we know that all kinds of macroscopic systems exist in states of quantum superposition, "mixed states," and we know that entanglement does not break down at large distances except when factors other than distance are invoked, we have every reason to believe that we as humans are "macroscopic Schrodinger cats." This is the standard view of many worlds physics, going back to Everett and Wheeler, and then David Deutsch, and modern quantum computing. Forgive an explanation, if any one needs it. You probably all remember the Schrodinger at thought experiment, which Schrodinger wrote about in order to explain why he thought Heisenberg's theory of measurement is implausible. "Put a cat in a small room, with a gun pointed to its head, controlled by a Geiger counter controlled by a timer. set it up so that we expect a t50 percent probability the gun fires and the cat dies. According to Heisenberg, the cat is in a mixed state, half alive and half dead, until you open the door and look. By the act of observing the cat, YOU make it make up its mind, force it to be alive or dead." But isn’t the cat an observer? In the modern many worlds picture, when you open the door and look, YOU get split into two copies, one seeing a dead cats and the other a live cat. From the experiments on macroscopic Schrodinger cats, it would be a very great stretch to imagine that our world is not at least THAT strange. Of course, it can split into a world where Biden is elected, and another where Trump is. Deepak has once said "You all are all fictional characters, not really real." How real ARE we, if we are just Schrodinger cats for which other varieties exist, including universes where we do not exist at all? Our universe is certainly that weird, but also certainly weirder even that that. To fit the Bell experiments, we need to add that "retro ausal" feature, OR ELSE INJECT ASSUMPTOINS EVEN MUCH WEIRDER IN REALITY. The paper I just cited (in IJBC) shows a model, cMRFp, which adds that extra weirdness in the simplest way possible, adding nothing to the foundations of psi dot = iH psi. IN WORDS, it says that a photon passing through a certain standard type of polarizer "has a choice" at any moment of time dt. With a certain probability, it can jump to the polarization which the sunglasses "WANT" it to have, causing it to be disappeared and forever out of the experiment and out of the universe. With other probability, it can "become a total nonconformist," jumping to a polarization PERPENDICULAR to what the polarizer "wants," and forever untroubled by the polarizer as it passes right through. BOTH choices have very low probability at any small interval of time dt. But the requirements of empirical results and theory gave me no choice but to add a THIRD possibiliy for what the photon can do: it can "scrunch up its face like the comedian in an old British movie about seven sins", declare that it didn’t want to be IN this situation, in a way which changes the probability it would be in that situation, not just now but in the past and in the future. That is necessary, unavoidable. (And again, it is in the equations. This here is ust a translation into English, an explanation of what the equations tell us>) On the day I figured out, I thought: "Actually **I** am in a highly polarized and polarizing environment right now myself, in this office in the US government. if only I had third alternative, like this photon." And then suddenly realized: Hey, I do. as a Schrodinger cat, I too can say "meow." And it is not just me; sometimes it is a familiar pattern. What happens when a "handshake" of accommodation between past and future causes certain otherwise live possibilities to vanish into zero probability? This is a subtle matter, not a paradox in the mathematics but a strong paradox in the way people normally think. (And it has direct implications for the possible unintended consequences of building certain quantum optics systems even I know how to build). If we assume for the sake of argument that we beleive THE most conservative, tenable theory of physics, hard core Einsteinian realism, how could we explain macroscopic Schrodinger cats and explain what could happen here? In that case, our cosmos (which only has four dimensions) solves its Lagrange-Euler equations so as to maximize or minimize L over space time, finding the optimum in the ENTIRE SPACE of posisble configurations of space time (i.e. field values over space time). Some people "exist" only as part of the possible configurations which could have existed but are eliminated; they are "shadows of the mind." Thus even under hard core Einsteinian realism, Deepak could be right that one or both candidates for president, and we who watch them, are all "fictional characters," real only as possibilities. Is psi dot = i H psi really weirder than that? Under psi dot = i H psi, it is NOT assumed that all states are either THE final truth or zapped altogether. It is a matter of degree, how much probability strength they have. however, if either candidate will cause a future with VERY BIG difference in quality of results (judged by 0, we would still predict that the "handshake" process will cause a withering of probability down to "infinitesimal levels," as probable as a ball just suddenly flying up in our living room without any external force working on it. I previously mentioned how different things would be under the theory that the "universe" we see is actually just one of the astral planes. The implications are not really all the different. That's as far as I should go with this. Even the most mundane, old fashioned theories predict that the next month or two will be unusually tricky.