I will keep the spoilers to a minimum: In a research project, test subjects walk down memory lanes and relive their memories with full detail. But some subjects find themselves in another version of their past. Perhaps one can change something? Perhaps one can stay there and live a new life? Read “Dreamer” for intriguing hints.

I lost my copy of “Dreamer” years ago, and I got a new one a few days ago. The book isn’t available in electronic format, and printed copies are scarce. I ordered a new printed copy from Amazon, and I got it after two months.

I am surprised that “Dreamer” hasn’t been a best seller. To me, Richard’s novel is an intoxicating page turner with hypnotic atmosphere, strong characters, and wild metaphysics. Exactly my kind of favorite read.

After (actually before) reading “Dreamer” the first time I got in touch with Richard and in 2005 we jointly wrote an essay titled “Shadows and the concept of self” to speculate on the science of “Dreamer.”

If I were to write “Shadows and the concept of self” today I would put a few things differently, but I think the main points are worth underlining.

While Hugh Everett‘s Relative State formulation of quantum mechanics makes a lot of sense, its popular interpretation as “Many Worlds” (MWI) should be taken only as a simple picture. We live in One Big World, of which our mind builds a simplified representation as many (small) worlds.

This “Many Minds” (MMI) interpretation of quantum mechanics seems plausible to me, and I suspect this is what Everett actually meant. See my book [*] for background and more thoughts.

This is quantum monism: What looks like “many worlds” from our perspective is “a single, unique universe from a global perspective,” notes Heinrich Päs in Scientific American.

“In other words: many worlds is how quantum monism looks like for an observer who has only limited information about the universe. In fact, Everett’s original motivation was to develop a quantum description of the entire universe in terms of a ‘universal wave function.’ It is as if you look out through a muntin window: Nature looks divided into separate pieces but this is an artifact of your perspective.”

In Michael Lockwood’s words (source: “Many Minds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”):

“A many mind theory, like a many worlds theory, supposes that, associated with a sentient being at any given time, there is a multiplicity of distinct conscious points of view. But a many minds theory holds that it is these conscious points of view or ‘minds’, rather than ‘worlds’, that are to be conceived as literally dividing or differentiating over time…” “The use of the term ‘world’ or ‘universe’, in the context of a so-called ‘many worlds’ or ‘many universes’ view, introduces an ambiguity. For there is clearly a sense in which even an advocate of a ‘many universes’ view would concede that there is just one universe: what, as we saw earlier, is sometimes referred to as the multiverse. A similar distinction is called for in the context of a many minds view. There is a sense in which I can regard myself as having just one mind. I could call this my multimind, but the word is not a very euphonious one, and in what follows I shall therefore mark the distinction by writing ‘Mind’ where I mean multimind…” “The common sense assumption that this history [one one’s mind] is unique is, I suggest, a figment of memory, which confines the gaze of consciousness to a kind of ‘tunnel vision’ directed downwards in the experiential manifold. We cannot look ‘sideways’ through the manifold, any more than we can look ‘upwards’ into the future.”

So what/where is your Mind?

Your mind here and now is a shadow (I guess “projection” is more correct, but “shadow” sounds nicer) of your Mind. For a simple analogy, think of your Mind as a 3-dimensional solid casting 2-dimensional shadows on different planes. When the solid rotates in its 3D space, the 2D shadows rotate as well.

In this analogy, the physical reality that you perceive is a 2D plane, and your mind is one of many shadows of your solid, 3D Mind. Your Mind is hugely more complex and conscious than your mind, and aware of all Everett realities — other times and other worlds — “at the same time” (here, intuitive physics and language break down and stop working).

This is beautifully hinted at in “Dreamer” and in Richard’s essay “Soul, Spacetime and The Hidden Observer” (at the and of “Shadows and the concept of self”).

The implications for afterlife theory are evident: After you die, your Mind is still there and continues to cast shadows on planes that ordinary human consciousness can access. Therefore, after death you will continue to experience other times and other versions of your life.

I think this is crystal clear. See the related essays:

While drafting “Shadows and the concept of self” I thought of an interesting extension of this concept of afterlife.

Somewhere in Everett’s One World (or, if you prefer, in some of Everett’s many worlds), there must be versions of your life very different from this one. For example, there must be a reality where the maternity ward staff screwed up bigtime, gave another baby to your parents, and gave you to other parents coming from the other side of the world.

In that version of your life, “you” grow up with other parents, in another country, speak another language, have another name, go to another school, meet other friends… The other baby grows up with your parents, in your country, speaks your language, has your name, goes to your school, meets your friends...

Which baby is you? Which Mind casts which shadow?

I think the simplest way out is to realize that the two Minds are themselves shadows of one MIND. Our Minds (and therefore our minds) intermingle and merge in the One World, and can be considered as shadows of one cosmic MIND [*]. We are all essentially the same person, as suggested by Eastern spiritual traditions and the philosophy of Open Individualism.

Therefore, as I said, after death you will experience other times and other versions of your life. But you will also experience other lives as other persons, which is equivalent to the traditional concept of reincarnation.

Perhaps some memories leak through now and then. And perhaps, as suggested by a (fictional) version of Robert Heinlein in Gregory Benford’s “Rewrite,” we can learn how to USE the physics of afterlife and reincarnation. “Make a technology.”

Enter my favorite speculations on technological resurrection [*].