❓QUESTION:
It is appealing to believe that this is how everything operates in our world. However, I am troubled by the perceived boundary between the microworld, where particles can exist in superposition, and the macroworld, where classical physics, not quantum physics, applies. While I am not a physicist, I have heard of decoherence, and the concept of 'jumps' between branches of reality is unclear to me. Don't these contradict the law of conservation of energy? Scientists acknowledge the existence of multiverses but firmly state that these 'branches of reality' do not intersect; once a split occurs, it is irreversible. Perhaps we are simply left to believe without fully comprehending how it works? Your concept offers guidance during difficult times in my life, yet moments of doubt still arise.
❗️ANSWER from Lee:
First, there is no fundamental division between the macro- and microworlds. Instead, there are different perspectives from which to observe phenomena. Quantum physics operates in the macroworld just as it does in the microworld; it's simply that these processes involve trillions of simultaneous options that science currently lacks the technical equipment to measure.
Second, modern science lacks a complete understanding of the true nature of time and space, describing only their manifest consequences. This leads to differing interpretations of what 'branches of reality' truly are. A linear understanding suggests that time flows independently from non-existence into the future, with branches emerging along the way, but the true meaning is entirely different.
Time Is a Point. Space is not an emptiness but rather a means for connections to manifest. These connections 'revolve within that point' as cycles, creating the perception of dynamic events. All of this can be demonstrated quite simply mathematically, without contradicting Physics at all; on the contrary, it illustrates how PHYSICS ARISES.
In other words, our science is built upon describing observable, manifest events, but it has not yet been able to explain WHERE physical laws originated. Thus, it's not about 'just believing,' but rather about examining simple logic: if a world exists around us, then it must have a source. This source cannot be reduced to 'there was simply a bang, and everything appeared,' as that explanation is no more than another religion in the vein of 'God willed it and sculpted man.'
Branches of reality do not exist as independent phenomena; they are discrete informational 'points' that arise, approximately as science understands, from 'quantum irreversible choice.' This choice is as irreversible as a written word. However, an infinite number of words can be written in any sequence of letters.
In this analogy, there are 'letters' representing the universal informational structure of Everything, and 'words' which represent the logic that combines these letters into meanings—Universes. To avoid inventing new entities, consider the beginning as 'Is' and 'is not'—0 and 1, where 'is not' signifies an assumption, or an illusion.
Now, follow the logic of 0 and 1—as an infinite combination of 'divine information'—and you will find an analogy with our understanding of the digital environment. We humans do not invent anything; rather, we construct our technologies based on existing archetypes.
Therefore, different universes are akin to switching between various programs (windows) on a computer; the logic of one differs from that of another, thus giving rise to a 'different branch of reality.' While this is a significant simplification, the essence is that our physics is gradually moving toward this understanding; otherwise, it will remain in the deadlock currently faced by the Theory of Everything, which attempts to explain the world from already existing 'different forces.'
