Toward aHowScience of Synchronicity

do meaningful coincidences occur? How do meaningful coincidences occur?

Retroactive Event Determination in Consistent Histories and Relational Quantum Mechanics,
Leading to Macroscopic Quantum Effects and Synchronicity
Introduction
Macroscopic Quantum When you walk out of this room, are the events that will happen to you pure chance?
Are they pre-determined? My interpretation of the quantum principles presented here show that
Retroactive Event
Superposition States everyday events are undetermined until we observe them. Because nature exists in an undetermined or
Macroscopic Quantum Superposition state until it is observed, events are free to fall-into-place
around you based upon actions you take. In other words, “Fate follows free will.”
Determination (RED)
What sorts of meaningful coincidences may happen to you when you leave this room?
An MQS state is when regular everyday MQS states are real: It is not yet determined, but it may depend upon your own actions. Let’s see how... Imagine that when you (person P in diagram C, D, E) finish reading this poster you walk out of the room via
objects exist in an undetermined state “[If one agrees that the use of Hilbert spaces door 2. Suddenly you run into a friend you haven’t seen in a while (S), and you are delighted. What would
(i.e. superposition of many states at once). in quantum theory is correct]... Diagram A: ‘S’ makes a choice. ‘Q’ and ‘P’ later observe it. Drawn from Person P’s view. Diagram B: An event from both P’s and Q’s point of view.
have happened if you had walked instead out of door 1? Would you have missed your friend altogether?
then MQS states will be present in the theory,
Physicists have debated the existence of such because the Hilbert space is a linear vector space,
Only one perspective on the world is allowed to be definite (P in this diagram). The This diagram is invalid. Both P and Q are in definite states, and a paradox RED says that as you read this, your friend exists in a MQS state (from your perspective). There are many
measurement of S by Q leads to a correlation of the states, resulting in MQS arises (they disagree on their measured state of S). This represents looking
states because they conflict with our common so that if it contains [two possible states], it must (undetermined) states (Q and S). This allows Q and S to always agree on what P measures. at the event from two perspectives at once, violating postulate 2. different possible versions of their reality, none of which actually physically exist yet. Which one

)JTUPSZ 

)JTUPSZ 
becomes actual can be decided after the fact when you finally interact with S. You could check in with

)JTUPSZ 

)JTUPSZ 
sense. The trouble arises because we imagine also contain their linear combinations.” [Griffiths p.145]

if MQS states existed, then we should be able “[Paradoxes arise through] a process any third party (Q) who had already interacted with S. From your perspective the states of Q and S are
to observe them. Clearly nobody of implicitly…choosing families [of events] which contain both undetermined (MQS) until you interact with one of them. Since any interaction between them
no MQS states, and then inferring from this that the causes a correlation of their states (S and Q), you will always find that they agree on which set
has ever seen an MQS state. The question is:
t=5
t=5

future influences the past, or that there are mysterious

of facts (1 or 2) became the actual events. We might object that S’s decisions can’t be affected by yours.
what is the world like
t=3
non-local influences…” [Griffiths pg 283] t=3

In other words, the existence of MQS states is However, there is no paradox if one carefully considers postulate 2. You can only meaningfully describe

1
2
t=1

5*.&
2
t=1

5*.&
when we are not watching it?

4
necessary to avoid paradoxes in the real world. the world and the MQS states from one perspective at a time.

4
t=0
t=0

Postulate 1:

t
'SPN
ZPVS
QFSTQFDUJWF

0/-:
FWFOUT
ZPVWF

t
5IFSF
JT
OP
ABCTPMVUF
QFSTQFDUJWF
PO
XIJDI
FWFOUT

PCTFSWFE
BSF
AEFUFSNJOFE
"OZUIJOH
VOPCTFSWFE
by you is in an undetermined (MQS) state.
For Science Minded Folk - Formalism
This theory is based on two established quantum mechanics formalisms:
Consistent Histories
Postulate 2:
Diagram C: A macroscopic version of a delayed choice experiment
(See Retroactive Event Determination on the right of the poster)
Diagram D: The Q-S superposition as P gets
ready to make a “measurement”. Drawn at t3,
Diagram E: The definite Q-S
state from P’s point of view
Events don’t actually “happen” Maybe the reason for the typical avoidance of
MQS states is that “most physicists do not have any
are determined or not. We can only Q
before P meets S at the door. Person Q and
S are both in an undetermined (MQS) state.
after measurement. Drawn at t5,
when P meets S at the door.
when they happen. intuitive idea as to what they mean.” [Griffiths pg 283]
describe life from individual perspectives.
Optimistic Synchronization is a process by which very large
t5 Person P runs into
S at door 2
P 2
Multiplayer Online Gaming numbers of distinct and physically dispersed internet gamers
?
Door 2 Massive Multiplayer Online Games (MMOG’s) seem can participate in a real time virtual world. The virtual world is
Relational Quantum Mechanics P to employ very similar concepts to those presented rendered separately by each user (using their own
The state of a system is not absolute, but is determined only in relation to a given processing power), rendering only the portion of
observer. Consider a single event S with two possible outcomes (Diagram A, B), (person) t3 Observer Q
interacts with S
Q 1 Q
2
t3 Observer Q
Q
here. In doing so, they may provide the virtual world likely to be interacted with by
which is then observed by 3 separate observers, Q, P and K (K is not shown). S interacts with S 2

(as presented in Griffiths, R. B., Consistent Quantum Theory, ? ?

valuable information on how these postulates them in the near future (their ‘observed’ reality). The

TIME
When observer Q measures S, there is no “collapse” of the wave function. Instead,

TIME
?
Cambridge University Press, 2003) S S remainder of the virtual world remains unrendered (in a
the wave function of Q and S become correlated, so that future measurements S work together to create a viable
1 2
2

Relational Quantum Mechanics t1 S Chooses Path 1 or Path 2

(by P or K) will always give consistent results. (see Diagram A, B) Door 1 t1 S Chooses Path 1 or Path 2
MQS state) until it becomes needed. This often results in
(as presented in Rovelli, Carlo, 1996,
t0 Person S initial state
S
Q 0 P0
S
0 Q 0 P
0 and consistent world which preserves free will. events being “decided” quite a bit after they actually “happened”.
“Relational Quantum Mechanics”, arXiv:quant-ph/9609002v2) Eqn 2: Initial state (t = 0)
0 t0 Person S initial state

|S0>
The formalisms are well established and are worked out thoroughly Eqn 3: State from observer Q point of view (t = 1,2)
in their original sources. For our purposes, we will give an outline of how |S1 > + |S2 >

Conclusion: Fate Follows Free Will

the wave function behaves using these combined principles.
Consistent Histories
Eqn 4: State from observer P point of view (t = 3,4)
|S1, Q1> + |S2, Q2> References and resources:
Events come in history chains, which are undetermined until after the fact. A free Author: Sky Nelson, 707-217-8595, theskyband@gmail.com
choice by S at t = 1 causes a split in the history, which remains undetermined from
P’s point of view. A later measurement by P (at t = 5) results in selecting one
The wave function of Q became correlated with S. Therefore,
both Q and S remain undetermined from P’s perspective. (MQS state)
This approach allows for the existence of indeterministic choices (i.e. free will) For further review of the concepts presented here, please take a copy of the paper “Retroactive Event
of the chains of previous events. I call this “Retroactive Event Determination”. Yet, if P measures |S2>, they will also find that Q measured |S2>. while still preserving the mechanistic Newtonian behavior of the physical Determination and the Interpretation of Macroscopic Quantum Superposition States in Consistent Histories
We can continue this process to any number of observers. From yet and Relational Quantum Mechanics”
Eqn 1
Time P measures S
another perspective, K, the three previous wave functions (S, Q, or P), world. Though our actions are constantly retroactively affecting the unobserved or download a copy and find further articles by the author from the following sites:
(History 1)
Z = [0S0, Q0, P0] =
[1S 1,Q 0,P 0] [2S 1,Q 0,P 0] [3S 1,Q 1,P 0] [4S 1,Q 1,P 0] [5S 1,Q 1,P 1] exist together in a correlated superposition state. world around us, any history that falls into place is always consistent with www.skynelson.com or www.expectingsynchronicity.com
[1S 2,Q 0,P 0] [2S 2,Q 0,P 0] [3S 2,Q 2,P 0] [4S 2,Q 2,P 0] [5S 2,Q 2,P 2]
(History 2) Eqn 5: From observer K point of view (t = 5) Newtonian Mechanics. Things do not actually “happen” when they happen, but Other resources:
Griffiths, R. B., Consistent Quantum Theory, Cambridge University Press, 2003
State Q measures S |S1, Q1, P1> + |S2, Q2, P2>
rather they fall into place when later events happen that make them necessary. Rovelli, Carlo, 1996, “Relational Quantum Mechanics”, arXiv:quant-ph/9609002v2
At time t=5 (far right) a measurement is made by P (P1 or P2)
which retroactively chooses one history chain or the other. When K makes a measurement of any or each of these wave entities, If “fate” is seen as the "apparent pre-determined nature” of the meaningful Reiher, Peter L., “Experiences With Optimistic Synchronization For Distributed Operating Systems”,
(lasr.cs.ucla.edu/reiher/papers/tw_experiences.pdf )
they will always find that the states of all three entities agree. S, Q and P
coincidences we experience, then with this theory one can say “fate follows free will.”
Legend: Marks a step in time/correlation over time
t=1 is a choice point where the history bifurcates/splits
[1S2,Q1,P0] is an event at time t=1, S is in state 2, observer Q in state 1 (measurement has been made by Q resulting in state 1) and P in state 0 (no measurement yet)
remain in a MQS state relative to K, until K observes them. Hsu, C., Ling, J., Li, Q., Kuo, C.-C., “On the Design of Multiplayer Online Video Game Systems”,
(http://viola.usc.edu/Research/alex_SPIEitcom03.pdf )