Many Worlds Interpretation justifies Selfishness

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the implications of the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics on moral philosophy. MWI posits that every possible outcome of a decision occurs, resulting in an infinite number of branching universes. This leads to the argument that if all actions exist in some universe, individuals may justify selfish behavior, as their actions do not alter the overall value of the universe. The conversation also touches on the relationship between morality and the existence of God, questioning whether the acceptance of MWI undermines moral accountability.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics
  • Familiarity with basic concepts of moral philosophy
  • Knowledge of value theory in ethics
  • Awareness of determinism in philosophical discourse
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the implications of Many Worlds Interpretation on ethical theories
  • Research the relationship between quantum mechanics and moral responsibility
  • Investigate the concept of determinism and its impact on free will
  • Examine philosophical arguments regarding the existence of God in relation to moral frameworks
USEFUL FOR

Philosophers, ethicists, quantum mechanics enthusiasts, and individuals interested in the intersection of science and morality.

TheDonk
Messages
67
Reaction score
0
I wasn't sure where to put this thread because it is about moral philosophy but depends on your understanding of quantum mechanics. I'll try to keep quantum mechanics out of it and just explain what results from the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of what's happening in quantum mechanics (QM).
I have to admit that I don't know very much about QM or the MWI so if I am wrong about anything I say about them, please correct me.

MWI states that whenever there are possibilities, all of them happen and the universe branches from it's current one into all possible new ones. We are only in one of these universes. I could say that we're in one where you choose to read this and another one exists where you didn't read this. But it isn't just every choice you make that branches, but every single particle that moves. There are MANY particles with MANY places to move per "frame" of the universe. What I'm trying to say is that every second there are an unimaginable amount of universes which are increasing exponentially. Since the universe started however long ago, there are virtually (if not literally) an infinite amount of universes where everything possible to happen did happen.

Here's the Value Theory part. Do I care about people in other universes? Let's assume I should. If everything possible to happen, does happen, then if I punch you in the face, I can say that I didn't in other universes. I can't even say that because I punched you in the face in this universe there was one more person punched in the face in all universes combined because I am just following the branch of a universe I chose (if we have choice). So now I can't change the "value of the universe" for the better or worse so I might as well do stuff that benefits me and have no cares whatsoever for anyone else.

The same thing could be said about an infinitely big universe or with branching universes from time travel.

I don't really have a question, but am just trying to start conversation, I guess.

BTW: You could say that morals no longer matter in these cases. If you believe in God you could use His existence to say that He wouldn't create this type of "multiverse" and say MWI, infinitely big universes, and branch-style time travel don't exist. But what if we had evidence for them? Does proving morals don't exist disprove God? I think most athiest still believe in morals, but this might be a direction to look into as proof against the existence of God.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why bring many worlds into it? Just say you are in the only world, which is deterministic, and all your actions are determined so you can't change the value of the universe in that case either. Fact is that your choice determines the value of the universe; if you choose to do harm, the value of the universe is worse, and if you choose not to do harm, the value of the universe is better. If everyone adopted your view on things, the universe would take a turn for the worse (as measured by most judgments of human value).
 
I don't know whether MWI is write or wrong or even believe in or am against it. I also didn't bring it into say that the good in the universe can be changed, but that it couldn't be changed.
 
I know that; I think you have misinterpreted me.
 
You're right, I did misinterpret what you said. I guess you might be able to add a deterministic universe to the other three universes that would have no morals. What I don't understand is when you said:
Bartholomew said:
If everyone adopted your view on things, the universe would take a turn for the worse (as measured by most judgments of human value).
 
TheDonk said:
Here's the Value Theory part. Do I care about people in other universes? Let's assume I should. If everything possible to happen, does happen, then if I punch you in the face, I can say that I didn't in other universes.

And if I don't punch you in the face, then there is certainly a universe wherein I did. So what? The concept of freedom of choice (which is really just the concept of being held accountable for your actions) already relies on the fact that you could have done such-and-such, but instead did such-and-such.
 
TheDonk said:
You're right, I did misinterpret what you said. I guess you might be able to add a deterministic universe to the other three universes that would have no morals. What I don't understand is when you said:
Bartholomew said:
If everyone adopted your view on things, the universe would take a turn for the worse (as measured by most judgments of human value).
If people adopted your view on things, then they would have no reason not to commit random acts of cruelty, so people would be worse off.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Many worlds and interference
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Graduate How can the many worlds interpretation be deterministic?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Is Many Worlds Interpretation Compatible with ER=EPR?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Undergrad In the many worlds interpretation, how do the worlds join?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Graduate Quantum mechanics, many worlds, and its implications -- I have questions
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
Undergrad Many-Worlds and Testable Claims
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Undergrad Many worlds interpretation with unequal probabilities
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
Undergrad How Does the Many-Worlds Interpretation Address Nonlocality?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Undergrad The TSVF interpretation of quantum mechanics
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Graduate Question on many world interpretation of Quantum Theory
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K