I The Horrifying Implications of the Many-Worlds Interpretation

kered rettop
Messages
259
Reaction score
95
In a different thread, hungrybear asks, Are the implications of MWI really this horrifying? The argument being that every conceivable world must happen to some extent, so that includes worlds so horrific that the mere possibility of their existing makes life intolerable here. Of course there were some attempted rebuttals suggesting that horrible things happen in this world too but the good outweighs the bad.

Unfortunately the thread is now closed but there are a couple of aspect of the argument that seems to have been overlooked.

The first is that in this world (i.e. a single-world paradigm) the most hideous things imaginable have essentially zero probability so they don't, in fact, happen in the finite history of the finite human race. With MWI we don't have that loop-hole. If it's possible then it happens.

The second is that the horror reaction seems to imply a non-linear value system: the grimmest experiences outweigh the most sublime regardless of how often the two occur. This is a common enough assumption - if the opportunity arose, would the prospect of Utopia for everyone else justify hurting an innocent child? Perhaps our value judgements are warped by our biological instincts.

That's it.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes PeroK
Physics news on Phys.org
Even in a single universe there exist very real 'worst of the worst' kinds of experiences etched into the eternal space-time block universe. So while it is legitimate to feel bad that there might be nightmare branches, we don't really have a good reason to worry more about it than we worry about a cave man slowly being eaten alive by a lion or swallowed whole by some snake, or the poor victims of Auschwitz or *insert billion examples of the worst experiences the human brain can consciously experience*

Another point I feel is often omitted from these kinds of discussions is whether most of these proposed nightmare worlds actually exist, I.E. is the state of a person being burnt, resuscitated, burnt again, resuscitated ad infinitum actually in the wavefunction?
 
Whatever this topic is, it isn't a discussion of QM interpretations, or of QM. "Horrifying" and similar ideas, not to mention value judgments, are not a matter of physics and are off topic here.

Thread closed.
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top