QUANTUM MECHANICS explained by NEUROSCIENCE !!
The Observer- Subject/ object relation of the Copenhagen interpretation reinvented, without half dead/living Cats and leading to an Entangled Raspberry shaped Multiverse with 8 or 12 entangled CP symmetric universal bubbles (or berries)
see: "The Conscious Readiness Potential Ratio Multiverse"
http://vixra.org/pdf/1907.0250v2.pdf
and : The Conscious Undivided Multiverse.
http://vixra.org/abs/1905.0123
Conclusion: there are always more observers (80%) RPII, to follow -by entanglement at universal distances- the initiative of RPI = observed (<20%).
Benjamin Libet found indications for the entangled 8 or12 fold Entangled Raspberry Multiverse already in 1983, by his RPI-RPII splitting measurements combined with a 20-80% splitting found later by Trevena and Miller .see:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1803.0100v1.pdf
see also:
The 11 fold connections in our brain:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1803.0100v1.pdf
see also:
The 11 fold connections in our brain:
Libet did not Notice the ratio constancy, other did notice them later. with an average 20-80% result for RPI respectively. RPII see Trevena and Miller ( <20%) : http://vixra.org/pdf/1803.0100v1.pdf
Free Will Readiness Potential Ratios, the Key for a Multiverse Number Calculation.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1803.0100v1.pdf
Democratic Free Will and Telepathy in the Instant Entangled Multiverse.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0026v3.pdf
Some versions of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics proposed a process of "collapse" in which an indeterminate quantum system would probabilistically collapse down onto, or select, just one determinate outcome to "explain" this phenomenon of observation. Wavefunction collapse was widely regarded as artificial and ad hoc[citation needed], so an alternative interpretation in which the behavior of measurement could be understood from more fundamental physical principles was considered desirable.
Everett's Ph.D. work provided such an alternative interpretation. Everett stated that for a composite system – for example a subject (the "observer" or measuring apparatus) observing an object (the "observed" system, such as a particle) – the statement that either the observer or the observed has a well-defined state is meaningless; in modern parlance, the observer and the observed have become entangled;
(which i.m.o. was the key invention of Everett)
we can only specify the state of one relative to the other, i.e., the state of the observer and the observed are correlated after the observation is made. This led Everett to derive from the unitary, deterministic dynamics alone (i.e., without assuming wavefunction collapse) the notion of a relativity of states.
However, i.m.o. the Key question should be: Are we human observers entangled with that Cat in the box during opening of the box experiment?
OR: do we live inside a fixed number of entangled SuSy parallel ( anti matter) universes, with large distant entangled susy copy cat in boxes, with 50% chance for entangled atomic decay.?
However we have to accept a superluminal entanglement connection between the susy copy experimental systems (at universal distances) around the box.
And that is the problem. Einstein did not accept superluminal signalling! or spooky action at a distance.
(which i.m.o. was the key invention of Everett)
we can only specify the state of one relative to the other, i.e., the state of the observer and the observed are correlated after the observation is made. This led Everett to derive from the unitary, deterministic dynamics alone (i.e., without assuming wavefunction collapse) the notion of a relativity of states.
However, i.m.o. the Key question should be: Are we human observers entangled with that Cat in the box during opening of the box experiment?
OR: do we live inside a fixed number of entangled SuSy parallel ( anti matter) universes, with large distant entangled susy copy cat in boxes, with 50% chance for entangled atomic decay.?
However we have to accept a superluminal entanglement connection between the susy copy experimental systems (at universal distances) around the box.
And that is the problem. Einstein did not accept superluminal signalling! or spooky action at a distance.
