1

If the Many Worlds theory (an infinite number of alternate realities where any and all possibilities are realized) is real, and we were able to travel to alternate realities where we could see how events play out differently, wouldn't it make more sense to explore all the options that many alternate realities would offer you, instead of deciding that only one option is the "correct" or "best" one?

For example: A common fantasy is to get away with robbing a bank, getting away with it, and living high on the hog for the rest of our lives. We don't actually do it because we believe theft is wrong, we're afraid of imprisonment, etc.

But if we could travel to an alternate reality why shouldn't we explore the option? In one reality out there robbing a bank, getting away with it, and living high on the hog for the rest of our lives is exactly what happens.

In another you get shot and die. In another it leads to you becoming the ruler of the planet. In another you rob the bank on the day it has no money. And in yet another you open the bank vault and God is in there and hands you a letter that reads "Ggod doesn't exist". etc. etc.

With so many possibilities wouldn't you owe it to yourself to put aside your morality and explore the possibilities? And aren't we hampered by the one set of morals and decision making capabilities that this "set" reality offers us?

Edit: How much more would it affect your decision making if you accept the notion that the effects of what you do also affect everyone and everything around you, not just your own personal path?

  • As @BrianCarroll mentioned in his answer, we can't travel between these parallel universes. This is a good reason to doubt their existence. There is no point to choice in many worlds. The point is to make sure determinism survives an indeterministic quantum mechanics. It is not to protect human free will. – Frank Hubeny Feb 16 '18 at 19:00
  • @Frank Hubeny : I have not understood it as a way to "preserve determinism", but rather to make a fully mathematically well-defined theory . The most common "indeterministic" interpretation of quantum mechanics is Copenhagenism, and the BIG problem with that is that the indeterministic element - the randomized wave collapse - is not well-defined as to the when-time of its occurrence . In particular the term "measurement" is used to describe the circumstance, but this term has no mathematical and unambiguous formal-language description, instead being a vague natural-language term, yet upon – The_Sympathizer Feb 18 '18 at 9:48
  • which the action of a physical process is predicated! Whereas with something like many worlds, or like Bohmian mechanics, or a number of alternative options, there are no such actual indeterministic processes subject to predication upon such vaguenesses. "Objective collapse" theories are probably the most true to well-defined and indeterministic attempts at a theory since the describe an explicitly mathematically defined stochastic process at work, the trouble is they do give different predictions and I'm not sure the data bears them out. – The_Sympathizer Feb 18 '18 at 9:51
  • @The_Sympathizer On pages 259-60 of Shimon Malin's "Nature Loves to Hide" he says the splitting is not "well-defined" when location is what is being measured. That could lead to an infinite splitting. He also mentions the theory is not relativistic and it replaces the ambiguities of the collapse with the the ambiguities of a split. As I see it the reason why one goes through the trouble of many worlds is to remove indeterminism. It is likely better to accept it. – Frank Hubeny Feb 18 '18 at 14:32
  • @The_Sympathizer In thinking about this further, I agree with you that preserving determinism is not what is really relevant here. Why does one want to preserve determinism in the face of randomness that one cannot explain? The reason to remove the randomness is to avoid the possibility that an agent might be responsible for the randomness, that is, that it could be the result of a choice by some agent. – Frank Hubeny Feb 19 '18 at 3:37
1

I think that with your interpretation you are adding in travel between these realities as well as between times. If indeed we can be this omniscient time traveler we could (almost) all find "our price" for betraying our morality and settle in that reality/branch of decisions.

Before now I do not believe I have heard of an interpretation where we can have this ability. If we had this power even in our own single reality, I'm sure we could also find a perfect path for ourselves among the near limitless options in front of us.

While a lot of people here may have some inherent problems with the notion of asking a "should/shouldn't" question, I would have to agree that it would be within our best interest and potentially the best interest of humanity itself to explore a lot of these options before "deciding."

As for your final question. We are certainly hampered or limited, whether for better or worse, by our reality and the constructs within. Note that some of these will certainly be for the better though. For every "good" scenario stemming from the many worlds theory there can be at least just as many "bad" realities.

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.