Part of The exploration series
EXPLORATION 01 · REALITY
What if the future is not fixed yet, but consists of several possible continuations? Influence would then be less about control and more about choices and circumstances changing what becomes more likely next plus the additional MBT question of whether Intent might add anything further.
Thought experiment, not an HSP premise. Here we explore an idea from My Big TOE. The technical MBT terminology is referenced once on the overview page; throughout the articles we then use ordinary language wherever possible.
Exploration 01 · reality
What if the future does not exist as one fixed line, but as several possible continuations with different probabilities?
This article takes that idea from Thomas Campbell's My Big TOE seriously as a thought experiment. It is not a claim made by Human System Protocol™ and it is not a conclusion you need to draw from HSP. HSP remains at the human system layer.
The larger question is simpler than the technical MBT terminology may suggest: what if the next reality is not fully fixed yet, while circumstances, other players, choices and perhaps Intent help influence what becomes more likely next?
Reading rule: influence is not the same as control. A future with multiple possibilities is not a manifestation model.
Not a private future
In My Big TOE, the future is not yet fixed. There are multiple possible next events, each with a certain probability.
The technical MBT terminology is explained once on the overview page. Throughout these articles, we then simply call these possible futures.
For this thought experiment, it is useful to view the wider MBT information architecture through three different views:
What actually happened within this virtual reality.
What was possible from earlier moments but did not become the actualized history. Within MBT, such alternative possibilities may remain available as information for what-if queries.
Possible next states of the shared reality, with different probabilities before a next state becomes actualized.
These are not three private realities. They belong to the same shared physical reality and the same underlying information architecture.
Your possible future therefore does not stand apart from everyone else's. It is a relevant slice through the possible continuations of the same shared reality.
The same architecture later gets a second role. If consciousness can, according to MBT, query information from this larger system, the model also provides a possible explanation for remote viewing, precognition and other psi claims. Exploration 06 investigates that information-access side.
This has a functional resemblance to what some spiritual traditions call Akasha or the Akashic Records: an information layer in which information about reality, the past and possible developments is said to be available. This is only a comparison between models. MBT itself mainly uses database and information-system terminology.
Everyone is part of the same next state
Suppose we represent the full state of shared reality at time t as St. It contains not only you and your circumstances, but also other players, physical conditions, earlier choices, relationships between events, what has already happened and the rules and constraints of this reality.
From that current state, several next states may be possible:
St → A · 48% | B · 31% | C · 21%
The percentages are only illustrative. The point is simpler: A, B and C are not separate events only for you. They are possible next states of the same shared reality.
Not predetermined
In this model, the next state is not fixed in advance. One of the available possibilities becomes actual, in line with the current probabilities and with what remains possible under the rules and existing history.
The most likely possibility has the greatest chance, but it does not have to happen. A 70% probability is not a promise. A 5% probability is not a prohibition.
Once something actually happens, it becomes part of history. From that new state, a new set of possible continuations emerges.
One shared reality
A shared reality cannot actualize state A for you while simultaneously actualizing an incompatible state B for another player, as if everyone had a separate physical history.
If you meet someone, that meeting must also fit the other person's history. If a train is delayed, one shared state emerges from which thousands of individual experiences follow.
This has an important consequence: you are not the only one influencing the future. Other people choose too. Organisations make decisions. Circumstances change. Chance remains part of the model.
Your future develops inside the same shared reality as everyone else's. Their choices can change your possibilities; your choices can change theirs.
Your experience within the whole
Suppose there are very many possible next states of shared reality. In some of them you experience event A tomorrow, in others B, and in others C.
What looks to you like:
A · 20% B · 50% C · 30%
can then be understood as your personal view on that larger collection of shared possibilities.
Your life is therefore not a separate script. It is an ongoing sequence of experiences inside a reality that is also continuously changed by events and other people's choices.
Ordinary causality first
You do not need any special effect of Intent to see that people continually influence future probabilities.
Attention changes what you notice. A choice can lead to action. Action changes information, relationships, skills and circumstances. That changes what becomes possible or likely next.
The rules of reality, what has already happened, current conditions and the choices of other players also remain relevant.
Influence is already ordinary. The additional MBT question is only whether Intent may also have a small direct influence on probabilities.
Compatible is not the same as proven
Quantum mechanics makes the idea of a fundamentally probabilistic reality less strange. Experiments such as the double slit show that classical intuition — one object following one predetermined path — is insufficient to describe the observed distributions.
But the conclusion should stop there.
The double-slit experiment does not prove MBT's model of possible futures, does not prove that our reality is a virtual reality, and does not prove that Intent directly influences probabilities.
My Big TOE interprets quantum phenomena as fitting a top-down, information-based and probabilistic model. That is an interpretation added to the experimental facts.
That makes the thought experiment interesting — not established.
Influence is not the same as control
Campbell goes one step beyond ordinary causality. Within MBT, Intent may, according to the model, influence the relative probabilities of future possibilities before it is clear what actually happens.
That does not mean: “I want X, therefore X happens.”
At most it means: “If X is among the possible continuations, Intent may perhaps make X slightly more or less likely.”
The rules of this reality, history, circumstances, other players and chance still matter.
That is why this model fits poorly with classic manifestation language: possibly having a small influence on probabilities is not the same as owning an outcome.
Many small steps, a different trajectory
A small shift in one probability may be almost invisible by itself. But once something different actually happens, it also changes the starting point for what can happen next.
Perhaps you happen to speak to someone. That creates information that would otherwise not have existed. You later make a different choice. That creates another meeting or possibility.
No individual step needs to be spectacular. Yet many small differences that lean slightly more often in the same direction can eventually produce a very different trajectory.
The interesting idea is not one miraculous outcome, but path dependence: what actually happens today changes what becomes possible tomorrow.
No-BS boundary
If you take this thought experiment seriously, several popular but sloppy conclusions actually fall away.
Not: “I create my reality.” But: “I participate in a shared reality in which my choices matter and in which, according to MBT, Intent may add a small additional influence on probabilities.”
The human interface
HSP does not need to decide whether MBT's larger model of possible futures is actually correct.
But once something actually happens and becomes part of your experience, precisely the layer HSP does examine begins.
Even if a new possibility genuinely exists, that does not mean your system notices it, recognizes it as an option or can operationally choose it in that moment.
A possible future and an accessible choice are two different questions.
That is the clean connection with HSP — without merging the two models.
Read: Not every possibility is available to your system as a choice →
In one picture
Within this thought experiment, the future consists of several possible continuations within one shared reality.
Ordinary attention, choice and action can already influence that future because they change conditions. Other players do the same.
MBT adds the further hypothesis that Intent may also shift the relative probabilities themselves.
Because what actually happens becomes the starting point for the next step, small differences can produce a different trajectory over time.
Influence without control. One shared reality. Small differences without guarantees.
Primary MBT sources
For MBT's own claims about Intent, possible futures and the rules of physical reality, the main sources used are:
The MBT terminology itself is translated into ordinary language once on the overview page. These sources support what MBT itself proposes; they do not automatically establish its larger ontological claims as science.
Continue the thought experiment
If choices matter and MBT proposes that Intent may add another influence, a different question becomes more important than “how do I get the outcome I want?”
Intent is not the same as wanting. →
Thought experiment: exploratory, not an HSP premise.