Full fathom five thy father lies;
Of his bones are coral made;
Those are pearls that were his eyes:
Nothing of him that doth fade
But doth suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange.
The Tempest. Act i. Sc. 2
Alright, everybody. You're all pissed that the show isn't catering to your expectations of what you would call realism or being "scientific" and what I would call closed-minded conformism to modern (but not proven) interpretations of what little science has so far discovered.
But don't forget, Fury didn't say this was gonna be a show about current interpretations of science. He said they would try to give everything a scientific or pseudo-scientific explanation. You people see things like psychics, or Walt controlling reality with his mind and you jump on the word "mystical" and shut out any more thought processes about how this still may fall under the realm of pseudo-science, if you're a creative enough thinker.
Now... first of all, let me tell you what pseudo-science IS, since no one seems to actually have any clue (including, possibly, David Fury, but that's another matter). Pseudo-science is the presentation of ideas as empirical, scientific facts but which actually have not been proven or observed empirically. Basically, for a system to qualify as pseudo-scientific, all it really needs to do is be internally consistent. As long as you can say "okay, here are the rules that this universe follows, and they behave in a lawlike manner", then that system qualifies. Whether or not its rules have any existence in the real world is the next step - it's what turns pseudo-science into real science, speculation into proof. But, for LOST, that step is unnecessary since Fury's quote said pseudo-science would be enough. So, speculation is still allowed on this show.
And, with that, I present to you my theory. I don't actually think the writers will spell it out like this in the end, for the simple reason that it would be pretty much impossible to write an expository scene describing all this. But, I believe that my theory is capable of explaining everything that has happened in the show so far and the purpose of this thread is twofold - first, to question my science if you feel like it (even though this is not science, it is pseudo-science, i.e. my own interpretation of certain data that science hasn't fully explained yet, of which there is a hell of a lot more than you all seem to acknowledge), and second, to discuss how well or poorly I've covered the questions presented in the Lost text so far (because, after all, that's really the only criterion when it comes to textual interpretation).
To begin, you're gonna need some background on Quantum Physics and what makes it special. At the sub-atomic level, the world does not act in the same was as it does "up here". Logic and reason don't seem to apply. Nothing is certain, the quantum world is all about probability. The first important maxim is that data like velocity, size, direction, or position are indeterminate if they're not being observed. By indeterminate I don't mean that we simply don't know the value until we observe it. I mean that an electron, for example, does not even HAVE a position/direction/etc. unless that piece of data is being observed. Schrodinger described this phenomenon with his thought experiment about a cat in a box. Since we can't see the cat, we don't know if it's alive or dead until we open the box. But, in quantum physics, what this would mean is that the cat is neither alive nor dead UNTIL we open that box. There is NO REALITY when it comes to the cat's life, only possibility. What the state of a cat or electron like this is called is being in a "superposition". The way this is represented graphically is in a "Hilbert Space", which has surfaces pointing off into various directions/dimensions, each one representing an "eigenstate", or a possible quantity for that data point. When in superposition, the vector representing the data point is off in the middle somewhere, in line with none of the eigenvalues. But when we observe it, it's like "uh-oh, I'm gonna have to make a choice now!" and it "collapses" onto one of the surfaces. Only then does it have an actual value, and the way it makes its choice is based on probability.
Now, this is fucked up, no? I think it was Bohr who once said something like, anybody who thinks they understand quantum physics and is not completely mystified by it has not actually understood the first thing about it. But, the fact is, experimentally, quantum physics has gathered so much evidence at the sub-atomic level that it is essentially proven (at least by the maxpublic definition of the word). So, now, we are forced to interpret it. And therein lies the problem. People can't seem to agree on the interpretation, and that's why this still qualifies as speculative science, pseudo-science, and that's one reason why it's still so damned interesting.
One interpretation, called the "many worlds" theory, is that when a waveform collapses, EVERY possibility becomes a reality. I may end up observing the cat as alive, or the electron as spin-up, but, just by observing it at all, another "possible world" has been created where I observed the cat as dead, or the electron as spin-down. This theory is very popular in literature, of course, because it is basically saying that every possible world, in some sense, exists somewhere or other. And that's freakin' cool. One problem with this interpretation, though, is that it goes entirely against our instincts that this is the world, the reality that matters, the one that's real. The theory doesn't play favourites when it comes to possible worlds; the one we are in is just a result of random probability. Well, you know what, that sucks. It's too much. We already feel majorly insignificant, telling us that there's an effectively infinite number of "realities" out there just makes everything... well, pointless. Because, the way that theory sounds, it seems like for any decision I've ever made, I've actually made every possible decision in some world or another. And that kinda negates the whole point of making decisions in the first place. So, as an addition to the possible worlds theory, sometimes people add on the idea that only ONE of the possible worlds is the "dominant" one. The real one. The other worlds do exist, in some sense, yes, but our world is the one that's in the film projector. The other ones are just reels sitting on a shelf. Got it?
Now... here's the fun part. MY theory. It's essentially a mixture of QP and Darwinian Natural Selection. I'm assuming the many worlds theory to be true, and I'm assuming the "dominant reality" theory to be true. Now, natural selection works on the fact that, well, existing is good. Species whose characteristics are consistent with their prolonged survival and the prolonged survival of their genes are the ones who are "selected" for. Imainge, now, that possible quantum realities worked in the same way. They have to compete with each other for dominance. They don't want to be on the shelf, dammit. They want to be in the projector. So.. what would make any one reality more likely to be dominant than any other? Well, since it is the observers (e.g. us) that very literally create the world around us (whether we realize it and can control it or not), an adaptive characteristic for a "reality" to have would be one which somehow catered to its observers (sort of like you guys want the show to do )
Now. The island. The island is a part of one possible reality that is "fighting" for dominance. It has some adaptive mutation which allows it to alter itself based on certain things within its observers' minds (which are as much a part of the causal scientific world as anything else) and, so far, this reality's "infiltration" of the current dominant one is localized around the island the plane crashed on, probably just by coincidence.
PILOT - The plane crashes, they survive. Why? Because that's one of the possibilities. Even if it's quite small, as long as it's there, well, that's how the waveform could collapse. And because our characters strongly wished to stay alive (consciously or subconsciously), perhaps because of all of their unresolved emotional issues, well, that becomes a part of the "island reality". That's the first example of its adaptive power - it just is what we want it to be, sort of. Now, the monster is another major part of the pilot as well. In my opinion, the monster represents these people's panic and fear at their situation. Yes. It's fear manifestation. Sorry Devin. And, when it kills the pilot, I pretty much think that was because Jack, Charlie and Kate, after finding out what the pilot had to tell them got a) really scared, and b) really mad at the pilot for flying a thousand miles off course and crashing. So, in response to their anger with him and fear, it became a part of their reality that the monster killed the pilot.
Tabula Rasa - Not too much to say about this one, unless it was actually Kate's desire for freedom that created the plane crash in the first place.
Walkabout - Locke's relief? Easy. He gets the use of his legs back and the respect of his peers as a cool hunting surviving leader dude. Easy to see why he would choose to "create" this reality.
White Rabbit - I have a lot to say about this wonderful episode. www.teegerschiller.com/lo...epages/103 ... just go there if you're curious.
House of the Rising Sun - Adam & Eve, and the white/black stone.... Well, the latter is probably more of a symbolism thing, not really a part of my theory. Not sure about who Adam & Eve are yet. Perhaps they were the first ever people to "observe" in such a way that made this reality able to dominate somehow.
The Moth - Charlie's a rock God, man. He needed that experience, he got it.
Confidence Man/Whatever The Case May Be - Pretty much all character stuff.
Hearts and Minds - The island reality, with the help of Locke and his goo, relieves Boone's emotions by giving him an experience that helps him let go of his obsession with Shannon. He didn't need her to actually die, he just needed to realize how he would feel if she did.
Solitary/Raised By Another/All the Best Cowboys/Special - These are the juicy plot ones. They're setting up the arc of the second half of the season, which I imagine will involve Ethan and "the others" as the "big bad". This island, the way I described it, as the local source of an infiltrating "reality" which, as a Darwinian adaptive property, makes itself dominant by responding to human minds, is an extremely useful resource. Like any useful resource, it can be exploited for someone's personal agenda if they're able to figure out how to control it. And that's Ethan and his group of others, in my opinion.
Now, listen up. In our world, and the non-island world of Lost as well, which are meant to be one and the same, there are many reports of paranormal stuff. It's all anecdotal, yes, and I'm sure the vast majority of it is complete bullshit. These include things like telekinesis, psychic powers, ghosts, and whatnot. But let's say that some of it isn't bullshit, that certain people, like Walt, Ethan and maybe Claire's psychic, have an unusual connection to the rest of nature around them. They aren't mere observers, like most of us, who are capable of collapsing a waveform but have no influence on where it will collapse to. Instead, they are also creators. When they collapse a waveform, it doesn't just collapse based on probability. No... in these rare cases, the observers themselves are inextricably connected with the observed, affecting the Hilbert space vector itself (which is what determines what realities/eigenvalues are more or less probable). Walt wants to get his parents' attention about a bird... the bird becomes a reality. He doesn't do it on purpose, it just happens. He doesn't know about his ability nor has he developed control over it yet.
But Ethan... Ethan has this ability too. And he HAS figured out how to control it, by getting near the "island reality" and usurping its resources. He's a parasite. He can appear in Jack's head as a hallucination - just like the island sometimes uses hallucinations (like with Boone) to make itself more desirable. But Ethan has his own agenda, and I'm not sure how yet, but I guess it involves Claire's baby. Ethan may have so much control over reality that he was able to plant the ideas about the plane crash and the evilness of the child into the psychic's head in order to manipulate her onto the island... I don't know. I haven't figured out the details. It may be a simple world domination thing, a quite literal one. More of reality domination than world domination, actually. And he's building a sort of army (his "others") which consist of anyone he can rope in, including most of Danielle's team.
Now... Locke. I think Locke has figured out something about what the island does, with its relief and whatnot. And he helps out by getting the characters focused on their situations. Maybe he sees how useful a "special" kid like Walt can be and he's trying to make sure Walt stays on his/the island's side rather than getting pulled over to Ethan. I'm guessing if Ethan realized how powerful Walt could become on the island (innate quantum manipulative ability + perfect environment = deadly weapon?) he'd probably kidnap him too. So I think the black and white, backgammon symbolism is gonna be a Locke/the island vs. Ethan/the others thing.
The ability/responsibility of having control over your world vs. the corruption/exploitation of this power.
Sort of a wonderful metaphor, isn't it?
Alright. I think I've gotta stop here. Tell me what you all think and I'll respond and expand on my thoughts some more later in the thread maybe.
Thanks for the new title, Amy!
SelfProjectRealized
I could buy into it, Evan. It's exactly what I thought I wanted in the beginning - a mixture of the real world surrounded by some paranormal intrigue, a nice blend of science under the umbrella of pseudo-science. It would be so much easier to just drink the water from the well and embrace the madness. The villagers are starting to look at me funny and I can see torches in the distance.
Any place in your theory for the Bermuda Triangle angle? Time Loops? Are we totally back to the beginning of this board when we actually had open minds?
Like you said, I'm still not crazy about fear manifestation. Doesn't mean it isn't true - just means I'm not crazy about it. I might just have to acquiesce and accept all of it in the end anyway so opening my mind a little more wouldn't exactly kill me. I'll think about it.
Thanks though for saying exactly what so many people here have been trying to express.
JacksGirlfriend
I could definitely buy this.
drabauer
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marty, that was very interesting music.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back To The Future
NeillT006
Or back to the past?
JacksGirlfriend
It is indeed an interesting theory, and it's nice to see that some people around here are still posting ideas worth reading. Kudos Oven.
That being said, I find it hard to believe the writers would go this route. Not that it isn't a cool idea and wouldn't be intriguing to people like us, but you have to look at the rest of the people watching the show. How much of Lost's fanbase is comprised of people hanging on Charlie's every word and squeeeeeing whenever Charlie and Claire are on the screen together? Something tells me an idea like this would go right over many peoples' heads.
But, anything is possible I suppose. Keep up the good work man, Pin would be proud.
walkingcarpet23
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Something tells me an idea like this would go right over many peoples' heads.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WC: I'm not sure this matters. There are two groups: them and us.
The regular fans are watching to see the actors they love and just enjoying a bit of television. Most people are content to just take the action and the characters and have fun one hour a week. Those people ultimately don't care where this goes. Then of course there's us.
When the final episode airs, the first group will never even know there was a purpose beyond an action-packed hour of television. The idea that there have been theories and speculation will be lost on them. Explanations won't matter. If everything goes over their heads they won't even know it because they never cared to begin with. We, however, will care, which is why we're here and why I appreciate every effort of possible explanation.
I like Evan's idea because it just might work. And like I said, I think we're back to the beginning.
JacksGirlfriend
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much of Lost's fanbase is comprised of people hanging on Charlie's every word and squeeeeeing whenever Charlie and Claire are on the screen together? Something tells me an idea like this would go right over many peoples' heads.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What? People who like Dom can't be smart?
SecondBreakfast417
I like this theory and I'm really glad you expounded on the probability idea. I had some similar thoughts when I first started watching, but I abandoned them thinking it would way to difficult for the writers to explain. But maybe not.
I also like the way you categorized the episodes in an earlier post. Great thinking.
spooky
I actually think I understand your theory!!! Weird!
But I can see how much this would make sense, with what we know of the show. I'm not sure I have anything of substance to add - Bravo!
JG - you're totally right - the other group of people won't care where it goes - but JJ and Damon are gonna take care of us, right? The LOYAL viewers?
JOSIE4
It works for me, especially when you talk about the nature of knowledge and the cat in the box example. I don't think its chance that John Locke in the series shares the same name as the British philosopher who was the founder of empiricism. Locke (the philosopher) believed a person consists of a stream of mental events linked by memory (i.e. all the castaway flashbacks in the episodes). Human knowledge of physical objects (the island, the polar bear, the casket, the monster, etc...) are always subjective to errors of senses so a person can not have absolute knowledge of the physical world so the characters or the viewers can never know if what they are seeing and experiencing is real or the truth.
Also, Locke agreed with the theory of tabula rasa (conveniently also the name of episode 3) which is the belief that the mind of a person at birth is a blank slate that must be shaped and must learn everything about the world through its experiences. This ties into the idea that all the castaways are now tabula rasa themselves--their previous lives, experiences, mistakes, ect are erased and they are starting brand new. This may also tie into the "Raised by another" theme--Claire's baby is definitely a blank slate. Locke was a proponent of "nurture" in the nature vs nurture debate. Locke thought that people were born basically good and had to be taught to do bad things. Raised by someone other than Claire, the child could be nurtured in the wrong direction and become an evil person.
monkibenes
Ok so how does this explain certain survivors being in the same flashbacks?
ODammet
The island wishes to become the dominant reality for these people - by forcing choices on them and making itself into a reality. There is the possiblity that they will choose "correctly" but most of them don't realize this choice exists (Locke being an exception) And their knowledge of regular reality is interfering in the form of the monster and bears - fear and knowledge of a world they've already known outside of this other optional reality.
that's all in question form. I'm just trying to really grasp this.
NotWithoutStilts
Nice post. Sad thing is, I understand where you are coming from, and dammit, I'm too good looking for that.
joepa15425
evan- just a couple of questions/issues-
__________________________________________________
The theory doesn't play favourites when it comes to possible worlds; the one we are in is just a result of random probability. Well, you know what, that sucks. It's too much. We already feel majorly insignificant, telling us that there's an effectively infinite number of "realities" out there just makes everything... well, pointless. __________________________________________________
this is your reason for believing in a "dominant reality"? because the alternative sucks? that's not psuedo-science, that's religion; it's the same reason man invented god.
________________________________________________
Imainge, now, that possible quantum realities worked in the same way. They have to compete with each other for dominance. They don't want to be on the shelf, dammit. They want to be in the projector. ________________________________________________
you are implying here that an entire UNIVERSE/REALITY has consciousness- and awareness of the consciousness of the other universe/realities. (they want, and they compete.) and the number of universe/realities would necessarily be infinite, wouldn't it? if a universe/reality has a consciousness, then that would be the "god" of that reality, wouldn't it? so we're talking an infinite number of gods, competing for dominance?
_________________________________________________
So.. what would make any one reality more likely to be dominant than any other? Well, since it is the observers (e.g. us) that very literally create the world around us (whether we realize it and can control it or not), an adaptive characteristic for a "reality" to have would be one which somehow catered to its observers (sort of like you guys want the show to do _________________________________________________
if you haven't already read it, you should read robert heinlein's "the number of the beast" for a story about alternate realities and how they are imagined into being.
lachme
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
this is your reason for believing in a "dominant reality"? because the alternative sucks? that's not psuedo-science, that's religion; it's the same reason man invented god.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, you're saying consideration of our instinctual feelings about something are a complete no man's land when it comes to enquiries into the nature of the world? Automatically, it becomes religion? The alternative does suck, yeah, but that wasn't the only reason for my "dominant reality" add-on. We're working here with complete speculation, complete theory, arguably complete bullshit. This isn't what I believe about the universe, it's just a way to make Lost sort of interesting. So, yeah, our instincts that this world is THE world should be allowed to be meaningful. ESPECIALLY when the whole many worlds theory in the first place was just put forward in response to another theory, which we don't even know to be fully correct. So, I think a big range of considerations, no matter how irrelevant some of it may seem, is fair game.
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
you are implying here that an entire UNIVERSE/REALITY has consciousness- and awareness of the consciousness of the other universe/realities. (they want, and they compete.) and the number of universe/realities would necessarily be infinite, wouldn't it? if a universe/reality has a consciousness, then that would be the "god" of that reality, wouldn't it? so we're talking an infinite number of gods, competing for dominance?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I suppose consciousness is a decent analogy. I didn't mean it as a literal implication, though, just as a metaphor to make this stuff easier to imagine. Like if I was explaining gravity to a 6 year old and I said "Objects at all times want to be as close to the ground as possible, so that's why when you throw a ball up in the air, it comes back down". I don't actually wish to imply that a ball has propositional attitudes.
Also, the number wouldn't be infinite. No numbers are "infinite"; infinite is a conceptual thing, just meaning that, given any number, there exists one that is higher. You never actually reach it. So, the number would be HUGE, yeah, but not "infinite".
And I don't particularly like your God comparison. Natural selection in species works the same way. It's a natural process, not a conscious guiding. That insect has reflexes that makes it jump out of the way when it sees something in its vicinity; that one doesn't. The former survives for a long time; the latter doesn't and the species dies out. To apply this to quantum realities, I admit, is pretty ridiculous. It would NEVER fly with scientists, there's a little too much conceptual confusion and ill-definedness. But, like I said, this is meant as a theory to apply to a piece of text, not one that's based on real-world empiricism. It's pseudo-science, not science. Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
if you haven't already read it, you should read robert heinlein's "the number of the beast" for a story about alternate realities and how they are imagined into being
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Lach! I'm always looking for good book recommendations.
And thanks for responding!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ODammet wrote:
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok so how does this explain certain survivors being in the same flashbacks?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess it doesn't, but is that such a big mystery so far? They were all in Australia, and all going on the same plane. The only non-airport flashback that had more than one character in it was Sawyer showing up in Boone's. But, I don't know, will this actually be important for the mythology? If it turns out to be, I'm sure I'll think of something.
SelfProjectRealized
_________________________________________________
So, you're saying consideration of our instinctual feelings about something are a complete no man's land when it comes to enquiries into the nature of the world? Automatically, it becomes religion? _________________________________________________
that's what i'm saying. belief without empirical evidence is faith, nothing more. theory is not belief; it's speculation, the considering of possibilities. however, in no way do i mean to imply that if it is faith, it is meaningless.
human beings see order everywhere, and look for order everywhere, from organizing a website and cleaning the kitchen to seeing a cloud shaped like a weasel or the face of jesus on a tortilla. in the face of chaos, we find order; and when we can't find it, we invent it. we invented god to give some order and meaning to our lives. the meanings we choose to attach to things are important to us.......but those meanings are not universal. so in this "dominant reality" where apparently wishing-makes-it-so, whose meanings take precedence? is it majority rule?
________________________________________________
Natural selection in species works the same way. It's a natural process, not a conscious guiding. ________________________________________________
you don't know that there is no "hand" guiding the process of natural selection. appearance does not make it so; after all, it "appears" that the sun rises and sets, does it not? the theory of natural selection is exactly that- a theory. granted, it passes occam's razor, making it the most likely reality- but as you pointed out earlier, probability is not the same as actuality. (don't mistake me for one of those "intelligent design" yahoos, though.)
i rank pseudo-science as more philosophy than anything else.
lachme
Wow, that was one of the best theories I've read in a long time. There are a few loose ends to it, but I think it really could work. Thanks SPR!!
ghsgolfergirl
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
belief without empirical evidence is faith, nothing more. theory is not belief; it's speculation, the considering of possibilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right... and I considered the possibility that agreed the best with my instincts about reality. Is that not still theorizing? I'm not saying I believe my theory to be true BECAUSE it agrees with my instincts. I'm not saying I believe it at all! The next step in this process would be to go out there and search for empirical evidence. Then, believing it would be justified and it would no longer require faith. And isn't that what always happens with all theoretical discoveries?
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
so in this "dominant reality" where apparently wishing-makes-it-so, whose meanings take precedence? is it majority rule?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good question. You're assuming here that the reality can be altered by groups as well as individuals. You're absolutely right, that causes a major problem because different people feel different ways about the same things and how we attach meaning to pretty much anything is a completely individual process. But don't forget, this reality IS NOT yet dominant, it's still localized around the island. If it did become dominant, it's quite possible that it would fail to maintain that dominance for the very reason you describe: its weakness would be the failure to interpret all these contradictory feelings/beliefs from all of our individual interpretations.
But we're not at the point yet. Not even close.
On the show so far, we've only observed the "island reality" reacting to individuals' specific thoughts and so its reference point was the meaning to that specific individual that it was "relieving" at that particular point in time. The only exception to this is the monster, which, in my theory, was born out of the fear of all of the survivors.
Now... this is awesomely consistent. Because, we haven't seen the monster and neither have most of the islanders, and the ones who DO see it won't see it the same way (as stated by Paul Dini). So, in this one extremely rare case, most everyone DID feel the same emotion - fear (the very notable exception being Locke). There was enough agreement to bring the monster into existence. But the individual meanings, the subjective details of that fear are different, hence why we and most of the characters haven't or possibly can't see it.
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
you don't know that there is no "hand" guiding the process of natural selection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, no kidding, but... that's fine. Either there is a hand guiding or there isn't, but as long as there doesn't have to be, then, since this is my theory, it's pretty much up to me, and I stand by my response to your consciousness/God point.
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
the theory of natural selection is exactly that- a theory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. That's why in my original post, I stated that I was assuming it to be true. If it was "proven", then I wouldn't have had to assume at all.
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
i rank pseudo-science as more philosophy than anything else.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since I was a philosophy major, it's not a big surprise that my writings come across as philosophy. But I agree with you. By definition, it can't be science (yet) so it has to be something... and philosophy is as good a word as any.
But... did you mean this as a critique of it? Your use of the term "rank" suggests a hierarchy. Is science "above" philosophy in your opinion?
SelfProjectRealized
Self:
Although I admire how well your formulation is conceived, and the compelling character of your arguments, there are things that bother me. I want to talk about one of them now.
From your explanation, I understand you to be saying that the competing reality has by virtue of a mutation gained a possible competitive advantage in hosting a reality having as its differentiating characteristic the ability to cater to the will of any resident consciousness learning the trick of quantum manipulation.
The question of "mutation" troubles me. While it is usually sufficient to think of the idea of "mutation" as connoting an unpredictable "wild card," I do not think this can be true in your approach. While the collapsing superposition may ultimately lead to one of several states, no state will manifest from the superposition unless it minimally had some probability of existence with which to begin. Thus, maybe a "mutation" can be described as the realization of a low probability state: i.e., unlikely, but possible. But not a bolt from the blue having no precedential ties to the probabilities of possible outcomes.
If so, and proceeding from the idea that all probabilities manifest as a result of each collapse event (some merely to go "on the shelf"), then it seems to me to follow that this "mutation" would have existed from the time of the first collapse (yes, that one). And if it did, then its competitive advantage would have long ago have been tested and either found wanting, leading inexorably to extinction , or found successful, and it would already have assumed the niche as the preferred version on the reality kinescope.
Now I guess that one answer to this is that universes do not exist subject to the same rules as their contained realities. But that just seems to be another way of saying that the micro has no relevance to the macro, which plays heck with the plot device you put forward. And, I note that you have already assumed that at least one other law of the contained universe (Darwinian driven evolution) is at play in existence at the multi-universe level, so there is at least some evidence upon which to expect that others would be as well.
Another answer may be that not until now in the history of the universe have the conditions been ripe for the success of the mutation. Human consciousness is, after all, a very recent event. But, the trouble I have with this is that is that I don't think that the quantum phenomena you describe require observation by a self aware observer. Maybe I am wrong. This is far a field for me. In any event, the existence of animal life has a history going back many millions of years. Even assuming that this life has been not self aware until you and me, it certainly has been observant, and has had needs. So, where was the caterer? And even if self awareness is required to trigger the latent benefit of the mutation, are you ready to assume that there has been no other self aware life in the universe, any place, any time? If not, then I think the analysis returns to the extinct/domination branch.
Thanks for provoking thought.
NeillT006