# What are the ethical ramifications (if any) of Many Worlds theory? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 29, 2020, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-ethical-ramifications-if-any-of-many-worlds-theory/847145 "2020-01-29T02:04:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2020, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-ethical-ramifications-if-any-of-many-worlds-theory/847145/21 "2020-01-29T21:05:42Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > What’s the \*\*practical \*\*implication of this notion of multiple universes? None. Nothing. David Deutsch initially conceived of quantum computers precisely as a way of demonstrating the practical reality of the many-worlds interpretation. His particular view on the matter was stated thus: “_When Shor’s algorithm has factorized a number, using 10[sup]500[/sup] or so times the computational resources than can be seen to be present, where was the number factorized? There are only about 10[sup]80[/sup] atoms in the entire visible universe, an utterly minuscule number compared with 10[sup]500[/sup]. So if the visible universe were the extent of physical reality, physical reality would not even remotely contain the resources required to factorize such a large number. Who did factorize it, then? How, and where, was the computation performed?_” As **Riemann** said earlier, Deutsch was a strong believer in MWI, which has become much more accepted in mainstream physics than when Hugh Everett first proposed it in the 1950s. Indeed _Nature_ ran a couple of feature articles on it on the 50th anniversary of Everett’s first thesis on the subject. However, I don’t find Deutsch’s argument all that persuasive. If such a quantum computer existed, it would only show that quantum computers are incredibly more efficient at executing certain algorithms than classical computers, and not proof nor even strong evidence that they are “borrowing” resources from another world. Quantum particles and their entanglements are so weird that it seems implausible to count them as discrete classical objects. As for ethics, it’s not relevant. MWI just says that for every wave function collapse that we observe, there must exist at least one universe in which it collapsed into a different state. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2020, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-ethical-ramifications-if-any-of-many-worlds-theory/847145/22 "2020-01-29T23:17:29Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > One ramification is the possibility of quantum immortality: [Quantum suicide and immortality - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality) > > In short, if there are an infinite number of existences, then there is always at least one in which you are still alive. With infinite possibilities, even when you’re very old, there will always be a universe in which you survive the next moment (or hour, or year, or decade, etc.), in addition to all the universes in which you cease to exist. It’s been hypothesized that it’s impossible for someone to observe their own death, and thus they will always experience one of the universes in which they are still alive. > > If so, that means that all of us will experience a universe in which we live forever. The ramifications of such existence are almost too huge to contemplate. That has to be the worst possible thing ever. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2020, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-ethical-ramifications-if-any-of-many-worlds-theory/847145/23 "2020-01-30T02:17:19Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I don’t think this is necessarily true. An infinite number of possibilities doesn’t mean all possibilities. > > Consider Pi. It’s infinitely long. But it will never produce the letter A. It will (assuming its a normal number) produce every number. Somewhere in pi is the binary for all nine movies of the star wars saga on blue ray but with the directors commentary replaced with the sound or your play in first grade. Similarly if the many worlds is correct there is a world that is just like this one but the particles that previously made up your computer screen are actually in the locations that match that of an over ripe avocado. If that isn’t all possibilities than I don’t know what is. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2020, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-ethical-ramifications-if-any-of-many-worlds-theory/847145/24 "2020-01-30T02:31:17Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > It seems to me that OP condition of assuming the many world theory is actually a red herring. The real issue at stake is determinism. In the many worlds frame work, I don’t decide whether to go fast or slow, I decide both In some universes I decide to go fast and in some I decide to go slow (in the vast majority I decide to do neither since I don’ exist). What I perceive as deciding to drive slow is actually just my observing that in the universe I inhabit was one of that I went slow. But the same dilemma can be arranged without resorting to the many universes, but just saying that the only universe that exists is the one I observe, but that my decision was governed by a combination of quantum chance and deterministic physical laws. I think you’re right about this. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2020, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-ethical-ramifications-if-any-of-many-worlds-theory/847145/25 "2020-01-30T02:38:22Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I don’t think this is necessarily true. An infinite number of possibilities doesn’t mean all possibilities. > … > You can have an infinite number of universes, all of them different, without having one specific situation present in any of them. You are correct that “an infinite number of possibilities doesn’t mean all possibilities,” which is what **iiandyiiii** ’s wording seems to imply. But if I understand it correctly, “many worlds” _does_ mean all possibilities. That is, everything that is possible to happen will happen in (at least) one of the many parallel universes. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2020, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-ethical-ramifications-if-any-of-many-worlds-theory/847145/26 "2020-01-30T03:06:28Z")
I’m not even sure what “multiple universes” even means in any real sense. Sure, it’s an interesting plot device in TV and movies where a character can open a door to a world just like ours except the Brooklyn Bridge is blue or the Nazis won World War II. But where would such a universe exist, relative to ours (or what we understand the universe to be)? It’s very hand-wavy to just say there are “multiple universes”. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2020, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-ethical-ramifications-if-any-of-many-worlds-theory/847145/27 "2020-01-30T03:40:04Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > You are correct that “an infinite number of possibilities doesn’t mean all possibilities,” which is what **iiandyiiii** ’s wording seems to imply. But if I understand it correctly, “many worlds” _does_ mean all possibilities. That is, everything that is possible to happen will happen in (at least) one of the many parallel universes. This is not correct for the many-worlds interpretation. As several people have said, the many-worlds apply to quantum wave function collapses, not human activities. No matter how many times this happens, the result is always finite, not infinite. All we are talking about is 2 to a very large number. A totally different thing, mathematically, existentially, and philosophically. > [@msmith537](#): > > I’m not even sure what “multiple universes” even means in any real sense. Sure, it’s an interesting plot device in TV and movies where a character can open a door to a world just like ours except the Brooklyn Bridge is blue or the Nazis won World War II. But where would such a universe exist, relative to ours (or what we understand the universe to be)? It’s very hand-wavy to just say there are “multiple universes”. The other universe exists in its own universe. The “hand-wavy” part is the non-physicist making statements about some of the most advanced physics we know of. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2020, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-ethical-ramifications-if-any-of-many-worlds-theory/847145/28 "2020-01-30T03:54:29Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > As several people have said, the many-worlds apply to quantum wave function collapses, not human activities. Yes, I should have specified that “everything that is possible to happen” has to be interpreted in the specific quantum-mechanical sense of every way a quantum wave function (or set thereof) could collapse. ---
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2020, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-ethical-ramifications-if-any-of-many-worlds-theory/847145/29 "2020-01-30T04:43:53Z")
If there is no “collapse”, then the state of the universe decomposes as the sum of many “worlds”. What does that look like? You are in all of them simultaneously (whether alive, dead, etc.) It is maybe worth analysing philosophically, but at the end of the day it is still just another way of describing your usual experience. I recommend against getting any bright ideas involving Russian roulette, lottery tickets, cats, or hot cups of tea. ---
**Author:** ![rosecoloredboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@rosecoloredboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rosecoloredboy)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2020, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-ethical-ramifications-if-any-of-many-worlds-theory/847145/30 "2020-01-30T06:29:08Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I don’t think this is necessarily true. An infinite number of possibilities doesn’t mean all possibilities. > > Consider Pi. It’s infinitely long. But it will never produce the letter A. > > You can have an infinite number of universes, all of them different, without having one specific situation present in any of them. Still, there’s only so many places a particle can be, and so many quantum states, so pretty much any fiction you can imagine is probably happening somewhere in a parallel universe. Even exceedingly unlikely things like croissants appearing out of the air after someone casts a spell. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2020, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-ethical-ramifications-if-any-of-many-worlds-theory/847145/31 "2020-01-30T11:11:25Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > One ramification is the possibility of quantum immortality: [Quantum suicide and immortality - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality) > > In short, if there are an infinite number of existences, then there is always at least one in which you are still alive. With infinite possibilities, even when you’re very old, there will always be a universe in which you survive the next moment (or hour, or year, or decade, etc.), in addition to all the universes in which you cease to exist. It’s been hypothesized that it’s impossible for someone to observe their own death, and thus they will always experience one of the universes in which they are still alive. > > If so, that means that all of us will experience a universe in which we live forever. The ramifications of such existence are almost too huge to contemplate. It means that there’s a universe out there in which Hitler is still alive, but it also means there are universes out there in which all of his victims survived to dance on his grave. I believe that this “QI” model is quite plausible, as perhaps did Hugh Everett himself: > [@](#): > > Hugh Everett did not mention quantum suicide or quantum immortality in writing; his work was intended as a solution to the paradoxes of quantum mechanics. [But] Keith Lynch’s biography states that “Everett firmly believed that his many-worlds theory guaranteed him immortality: his consciousness, he argued, is bound at each branching to follow whatever path does not lead to death” Some refuse to accept it, [for example, Jacques Mallah, Ph.D.](https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0902/0902.0187.pdf) Frankly these “refutations” of the Quantum Immortality model seem to me to miss the whole point. I don’t base my life on QI, but it sometimes intrudes a little on my memories. There were a few instances where I barely avoided disastrous automobile accident. Sometimes I wonder if there are other worlds where the near-accident had a different outcome and my loved ones suffered much grief. ---
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2020, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-ethical-ramifications-if-any-of-many-worlds-theory/847145/32 "2020-01-30T16:15:32Z")
You may wonder about stuff like that or about croissants appearing, as long as you understand this is pure fantasy. Intriguing theoretical questions about the the nature of the “multiverse”, anthropic principle, etc., notwithstanding since none of those are necessarily relevant in a simple quantum-mechanical situation like this many-worlds picture. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2020, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-ethical-ramifications-if-any-of-many-worlds-theory/847145/33 "2020-01-30T22:00:02Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I believe that this “QI” model is quite plausible, as perhaps did Hugh Everett himself: > > Some refuse to accept it, [for example, Jacques Mallah, Ph.D.](https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0902/0902.0187.pdf) Frankly these “refutations” of the Quantum Immortality model seem to me to miss the whole point. > > I don’t base my life on QI, but it sometimes intrudes a little on my memories. There were a few instances where I barely avoided disastrous automobile accident. Sometimes I wonder if there are other worlds where the near-accident had a different outcome and my loved ones suffered much grief. This is the worst thing imaginable, it means that the end point is ultimate lonliness in an empty universe devoid of anything except your conciousness, like a Boltzmann brain. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2020, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-ethical-ramifications-if-any-of-many-worlds-theory/847145/34 "2020-01-30T23:06:53Z")
I always understood the many worlds hypothesis, when applied to human decision making, is the theory that when a choice is made, one fork makes one choice and the other makes the other. This implies two things: 1. No matter which choice you make the same two branches are created, so any further branches you create are unaffected in any way by your choice: the same web of branches and varied outcomes is created regardless. 2. If you made one choice, the other you that forked away made the other. Which means that if you are concerned about how your decisions effect alternate “yous”, then you should always make the _worst_ choice you can imagine, to push the alternate-universe clones you are creating in the better direction. Of course this doesn’t increase or decrease the actual set of outcomes or overall level of suffering; what’s really happening is you are volunteering to lay claim to the worst possible path to spare the other “yous” from going down it. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2020, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-ethical-ramifications-if-any-of-many-worlds-theory/847145/35 "2020-01-30T23:12:31Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > You are correct that “an infinite number of possibilities doesn’t mean all possibilities,” which is what **iiandyiiii** ’s wording seems to imply. But if I understand it correctly, “many worlds” _does_ mean all possibilities. That is, everything that is possible to happen will happen in (at least) one of the many parallel universes. Wouldn’t this be a rejection of causality? I mean, one “possible world” would be the one where the entire world turns to jello _right now_. And there’s nothing saying that that possibility won’t come to pass. In fact any random event could occur at any time, and the many worlds theory as you appear to imagine it would imply it _should_. That the universe isn’t continually erupting into random nonsense is sheer chance - it’s like a coin that has constantly come up heads for the last hundred billion trillion flips _despite being a fair coin_. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2020, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-ethical-ramifications-if-any-of-many-worlds-theory/847145/36 "2020-01-30T23:42:45Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I always understood the many worlds hypothesis, when applied to human decision making, The many worlds hypothesis does not apply to human decision making. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2020, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-ethical-ramifications-if-any-of-many-worlds-theory/847145/37 "2020-01-30T23:49:00Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > The many worlds hypothesis does not apply to human decision making. It does in the OP, and in popular culture. I mean, yes, if you dissociate quantum stuff from decision making and ascribe decision making purely to deterministic physical behavior then there’s no connection, but I’ve actually heard quantum mechanics and the like used as a mechanism to justify free will. If somebody does that then it ties directly in. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2020, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-ethical-ramifications-if-any-of-many-worlds-theory/847145/38 "2020-01-31T01:43:36Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > The many worlds hypothesis does not apply to human decision making. You seem to be claiming that quantum mechanics does not apply to macroscopic objects. This may be the case, but it’s not evidently the case. And it goes directly against the normal formulation of MW. It’s difficult to say whether some specific thought or action will have a non-zero probability of appearing in a slice of the multiverse. But it’s not at all hard to arrange a situation where it’s true for specific actions: just say “if particle X decays before time T, I’ll do action A; otherwise B”. If MW is true, then there should be some slices where you did A and others with B. And it would lead to very different future histories for your different selves. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2020, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-ethical-ramifications-if-any-of-many-worlds-theory/847145/39 "2020-01-31T02:15:05Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > . . .the many-worlds apply to quantum wave function collapses, not human activities. . . > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > The many worlds hypothesis does not apply to human decision making. Are not all human activities ultimately based on quantum processes and thus quantum indeterminacy as well? Maybe not, but that would necessitate a duality between mind and matter, the analysis of which IMO is no less tractable than the many worlds theory. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2020, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-ethical-ramifications-if-any-of-many-worlds-theory/847145/40 "2020-01-31T03:15:46Z")
The interesting flaw in QM is that no one can tell where the line between classical and quantum objects lies or why or if there is one at all. Yet humans proceed through their lives as if they are classical objects, even to physicists. As such, we are not subject to wave function collapses. If you want to say we are, show me the math. Make the case that you can fit a left turn instead of a right turn into the equations. That something unspecified about humans is quantum somewhere in the depths is not that case, however. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-ethical-ramifications-if-any-of-many-worlds-theory/847145.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-ethical-ramifications-if-any-of-many-worlds-theory/847145.md?page=3)