Could Parallel Timelines Exist?
Parallel Timelines
At some point during creation, the construct of time begins. But if one resonates with the concept that there is an akashic records that houses every thought and action that has and could occur, then perhaps this is possible because of parallel timelines or multiple histories. The concept of parallel timelines is an intriguing one, right?
What are parallel timelines? In a nutshell, parallel timelines are where multiple, separate realities coexist simultaneously, often branching from a single decision point or a major historical event. Within this framework, every choice we make would create a new, distinct timeline. This could lead to different outcomes that exist in parallel to one another rather than as alternatives that cancel each other out.
The mainstream theories we find interesting related to parallel timelines and quantum systems are the Many Worlds Interpretation, Copenhagen Interpretation, and Quantum Bayesianism (QBism). Let’s dive in!
Many Worlds Interpretation
How is time conceptualized in the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI)? Within the MWI framework, the material universe itself would be considered a single, evolving wave function representing a superposition of all possible realities — meaning the wave function would have the ability to exist in multiple states simultaneously. This could be considered the sacred timeline, based on Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) references. Essentially, whenever a quantum event would occur, the wave function would branch.
When using a tree as an analogy, the trunk could represent the shared past. This would mean that all realities would share this same history or primary reality, up to a certain point. Branching points would occur whenever a quantum event has more than one possible outcome. For example, when a coin is flipped, there would be three possibilities for its landing: heads, tails, and side. Instead of the material universe materializing just one outcome, the MWI framework suggests that the material universe would branch to accommodate all three outcomes. The MCU’s take is similar, where a branching point or nexus event — conscious choice that deviates from the sacred timeline’s path — would cause the timeline to split, creating new, complete, parallel timelines.
Ergo, branches would represent separate, non-interacting, parallel timelines where each branch would correspond to a different outcome of the quantum event. Back to the tree analogy, leaves would represent all the possible future realities for each branch. As observers, we would also be part of the branching. In each of the timelines there would be identical, non-interacting versions of us. All outcomes would be equally real, and all versions of us would exist within this framework. Our perceived reality would be just one of these branches, and we would only be aware of the outcomes that have occurred within our specific timeline — although our higher selves would be aware of all outcomes and all versions.
Copenhagen Interpretation
The Copenhagen Interpretation, spearheaded by Niels Bohr, is the oldest and most widely taught interpretation. It’s similar to the Many Worlds Interpretation in that the material universe itself would be considered a single, evolving wave function representing a superposition of all possible realities. However, with this interpretation the wave function would only exist in a superposition of all possible states until it’s observed. Ergo, it would not be considered a real, physical entity but more like a mathematical tool for keeping track of the probabilities of different outcomes.
In this sense, the Copenhagen Interpretation doesn’t involve the creation of tangible, parallel timelines or realities. Essentially, when a quantum measurement or observation would be made, the wave function would collapse. This collapse would mean that the system would instantaneously shift from a superposition of multiple outcomes to a single, definite outcome. The other possible outcomes would simply cease to exist or cease to be physically realized. This means that reality would be indeterminate until it’s observed or measured.
Quantum Bayesianism (QBism) Interpretation
Similar to the Copenhagen Interpretation, Quantum Bayesianism (QBism), argues that the wave function would not be a physical description or objective property of material reality. Instead, it would be interpreted as an index of personal probability (a Bayesian probability) that is unique to the observer.
Also, there would be no physical wave function collapse. A measurement would simply update an observer’s personal beliefs about the system’s state, in the same way that gaining new information updates a probability in Bayesian statistics. Ergo, the collapse would be a subjective event — a change in the observer’s information — not a violent, objective physical process.
QBism introduces a form of participatory realism, where the outcomes of quantum measurements are genuine acts of creation influenced by the observer’s interaction, but the description we use is purely personal. The objective events happen, but the mathematical tool we use to track possibilities is a tool of belief. So while the material universe is composed of objective events, our descriptions of these events (wave functions) would be personal and based on our beliefs. To make a long story short, reality would be considered subjective.
Unified Interpretation
Is it possible that there is a more unified interpretation of parallel timelines that combines aspects of the Many Worlds Interpretation, Copenhagen Interpretation, and Quantum Bayesianism approaches? We’re not physicists, but here us out.
What if a wave function or main timeline could initially branch into tangible parallel timelines based on personal quantum level events or decisions? These parallel timelines would all have associated probabilities based on our ever changing thoughts and decisions. And what if these parallel timelines eventually collapse into the main, definite timeline once a quantum decision is made? This would suggest that the main timeline was more like a shared past based on the highest probabilities (Law of One, 65:9), with the lower probabilities ceasing to be physically realized but instead stored in the timeless, universal database of all thoughts and actions known as the akashic records.
This could explain how our higher selves (Law of One: 36:1-15. 37:6) are able to use the collection of parallel developments known as mind/body/spirit complex totalities (Law of One, 36:1-4) to aid in our future life programming. Could these mind/body/spirit complex totalities be synonymous with the akashic records?
Perhaps the re-converging of timelines could somehow be related to our sense our déjà vu. Could we be piercing the veil of parallel timelines? The process of decoherence reversal (branches later re-converging into a single timeline) is theoretically possible but is considered astronomically improbable on a macroscopic scale, according to the mainstream scientific community. However, in the spiritual and esoteric communities, the concept of reconvergence could be a possibility sense it’s thought that creation goes through a cycle of unwinding and winding back into a single point, Source (Bhagavad Gita: 8:17-19, 9:7-10). Fascinating, right?