Dear Group members,

Could you please read this and get back to me. I apologise that Figure 2 is missing from the email as it didn’t upload. It can be found, however, at lynandrews.substack.com.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Lyn Andrews

Modelling multidimensional mind using quantum entanglement.

Quantum mechanics is one of science’s many success stories, and quantum entanglement is a still-mysterious part of it. According to Wikipedia, ‘Quantum entanglement is the phenomenon of a group of particles being generated, interacting, or sharing spatial proximity in such a way that the quantum state of each particle of the group cannot be described independently of the state of the others, including when the particles are separated by a large distance.’

An experiment used to demonstrate quantum entanglement involves two electrons, a set of rules, and measurement. Since spin is a property of electrons which can be measured as being either up or down, this property of electrons is usually used. The rule applied requires the spins of the two electrons which are entangled with each other to have alternative spins when measured. In other words, if the spin of the electron measured is up, the spin of the other electron will be down. However, the still-mysterious aspect of the experiment relates to the state of the spin of the electron upon measurement. In other words, who or what determines the spin of the electron which will be measured? As it stands, the outcome is unpredictable and all that come be done is to calculate probabilities. The situation is summarised in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Summary of experimental situation.

1. The objective reality of electrons 1 and 2.

2. The application of a rule, which having come from the brain of the experimenter, is therefore subjective.

3. The resulting subjective-objective entanglement.

To further differentiate and represent the component aspects of the experiment, a Venn diagram is used in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Venn diagram of component aspects of the experiment.

One circle represents the objective nature of electrons 1 and 2. A second circle represents the subjective nature of the rule applied. The third circle represents the entangled nature of the objective aspect of the experiment, the electrons, with the subjective nature of the rule prior to measurement. In other words, the superposition. Indeed, the writer proposes that without the subjective nature of the rule being applied, there would be no superposition and no entanglement. Nor would there be anything to measure.

The implication of this is profound. It means for entanglement to exist, there must be an objective and subjective component to the superposition. Furthermore, the subjective component, the rule, having been applied by the brain of a human being, is entangled within the superposition. This implies that the mind of a human is not confined to the brain, but is non-local at the level of quantum superposition.

However, the question remains. Who or what determines the state of the spin of the electron upon measurement? Could it be the experimenter? Or an outsider? The results of experiments like these have demonstrated the unpredictable nature of the outcome, and there are no hidden variables as proved by John Bell. This writer proposes that since it has been shown that the mind of the experimenter is non-local, there is reason to suspect that the measurement is made by another mind which is also non-local. A mind which activates decoherence. Furthermore, in contrast to the mind of the experimenter, which has limited knowledge and understanding of the initial conditions, the other, non-local mind must have unlimited knowledge and understanding of the initial conditions. If this was not the case, the results of similar experiments would have been chaotic and imply that every person on the planet produces their own version of the classical realm, a bit like a series of personalised multiverses. Since this is not the case, the higher, non-local mind must be interconnected with the experimenter’s mind, and more than likely, the other millions of individual minds on the planet. The corollary being that ‘mind’ is non-local, interconnected and multidimensional.

The existence of mind at the personal and multidimensional level lends support for higher mind being present at the beginning of the universe. Since it has been shown that decoherence occurs at the level of higher mind, and that entanglement involves subjective aspects and objective aspects, or mind and matter, mind must have been present and active at the beginning of the universe for the manifestation of matter to take place. Conversely, in the absence of mind, there could be no quantum entanglement and no classical realm.