Quantum ethics?

[Jekyll]

Just for fun, let's assume Wheeler's many-worlds interpretation is correct. Here's a question: Do we now have to worry about quantum ethics? Here's a (over)simplified example of what I mean: you engage in some very risky behavior or other, that has a high probability of injury or death -- say, some extreme-sport that only the slackers in a Mountain Dew commercial would try.

Does the many worlds hypothesis imply you haven't stopped beating your wife yet?

My honest answer is it doesn't effect anything. If you're trying to decide if a course of action is valid or not, you should look at the possible risk and weigh them against the possible gains. You should still do this under the many world hypothesis.

 

[Humphreys]

As has already been mentioned, the other "yous" are still "you".

Also, we'd have to ask the same question in a single Universe world. Putting your life at risk increases the chances of you causing pain to your family and friends if you happen to die, or get badly injured.

I believe it is generally suggested that every single possibility gets played out anyway, so it makes little difference which action you personally decide to take.

It's more of a problem for the meaningfulness of morality itself than anything.

What use is morality if you're going to choose every action possible, regardless?

 

[Bri]

This may seem a kind of ignorant quantum question, but exactly when in this supposed quantum universe is there a single decision making event? If such a thing were actually possible, wouldn't that be kind of self refuting to the whole theory?

My understanding (limited as it is) is that the many-worlds interpretation says that the universe splits into multiple universes at regular intervals, many times per second (and a moment later, each of those universes splits into multiple universes, etc). Each universe has a different possible future based on probability. In other words, something that has a higher probability of occurring will presumably occur in more universes than something with a lower probability of occurring.

I assumed the question posed in the OP concerned a choice being made now (in a particular universe) affecting the future of millions of universes that subsequently split off from this one. For example, if you perform a risky behavior now, more of the universes that will split off of this one will have a negative result from the action than if you perform a less-risky behavior instead. So even though nothing bad may seem to happen as a result of a risky action, it's only because you happen to be in one of the universes where nothing bad happened, and in many other universes something bad did happen as a result of your action (you are probably even dead in some of them).

In reality, quantum theory probably doesn't allow for us to have true free will, so it is questionable whether or not we can control our own actions anyway. But in a more practical sense, we are equally responsible for the risks we take whichever interpretation (if any) is right. If many-worlds is right, we are responsible for the number of bad outcomes of an action (proportional to the amount of risk inherent in the action), and if it isn't we are still responsible for the amount of risk taken regardless of the outcome since risky behaviors produce negative outcomes more often than not-so-risky behaviors.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I believe it is generally suggested that every single possibility gets played out anyway, so it makes little difference which action you personally decide to take.

Yes and no. A particularly risky action will still produce a negative outcome in more future universes than a less-risky action. Ethically, if we are responsible for our actions, then we should still choose the less-risky action.

What you are saying is that in other universes, you will choose the risky action regardless of whether you do so in this universe. While that is true according to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory, what a different "you" does in another universe is inconsequential to the discussion since that other universe has its own set of future universes which are independent of those split off from the one you currently inhabit.

The fact that quantum theory precludes free will notwithstanding, your actions do, in fact, affect the number of future universes that see a negative or positive result.

-Bri

 

[TobiasTheViking]

But in a more practical sense, we are equally responsible for the risks we take whichever interpretation (if any) is right. If many-worlds is right, we are responsible for the number of bad outcomes of an action (proportional to the amount of risk inherent in the action), and if it isn't we are still responsible for the amount of risk taken regardless of the outcome since risky behaviors produce negative outcomes more often than not-so-risky behaviors.

-Bri

Sorry, i still disagree. You are saying that by making the choice to not do something dangerous, you removes the number of bad outcomes in the different realities combined.. yes?

But, by making the choice to do something dangerous, or do something that isn't dangerous, a branch will happen no matter what you choose. If you choose to do something that isn't as risky, then in another branch you will choose to do something that is risky. And in the end, no matter what choice you do, in another branch you will choose every other possibility.

So, you will be choosing both to do something that isn't risky, and you will be choosing to do something that is risky. In either case, the sum should be the same.

No?

Sincerely
Tobias

 

[I less than three logic]

Sorry, i still disagree. You are saying that by making the choice to not do something dangerous, you removes the number of bad outcomes in the different realities combined.. yes?

But, by making the choice to do something dangerous, or do something that isn't dangerous, a branch will happen no matter what you choose. If you choose to do something that isn't as risky, then in another branch you will choose to do something that is risky. And in the end, no matter what choice you do, in another branch you will choose every other possibility.

So, you will be choosing both to do something that isn't risky, and you will be choosing to do something that is risky. In either case, the sum should be the same.

No?

Sincerely
Tobias

See now this one makes sense. By choosing the less risky, you create other branches in which the “not-yous” now take the more risky option. You are, therefore, making it less likely that “you” will be injured or killed, but the “not-yous” are now more likely to be.

Now we just seem selfish from this prospective. I conclude that take we should always take the most risky choice. Then, there would be “not-yous” that will take the less risky. This way “you” are now more likely to be injured or killed than the “not-yous” that you’ve forced to take the less risky route by making your choice to take the more risky.

 

[Bri]

Sorry, i still disagree. You are saying that by making the choice to not do something dangerous, you removes the number of bad outcomes in the different realities combined.. yes?

Remove, no. Lessen, yes.

But, by making the choice to do something dangerous, or do something that isn't dangerous, a branch will happen no matter what you choose. If you choose to do something that isn't as risky, then in another branch you will choose to do something that is risky. And in the end, no matter what choice you do, in another branch you will choose every other possibility.

You misunderstand quantum theory (or maybe I do). The branches don't occur as a result of your making a choice with the antithesis of your choice happening in a new parallel world as you describe. According to quantum theory, quantum events occur randomely but with a given probability (quantum event "A" has a 90% probability of occurring at a given time). In some interpretations, the universe rolls the dice to see whether the event actually occurs or not. So although the event had a 90% chance of occurring, it is possible for the event to not occur.

According to the many-worlds interpretation, at any given moment in time, any given universe will branch into millions of new universes. At the next moment in time, each of those new universes will branch into millions of new universes, and so on. If a quantum event has a 90% chance of occurring in a particular universe at a given moment in time, it will occur in 90% of the resulting universes (and won't occur in the remaining 10%). Therefore, if you look at one of the resulting universes, the event had a 90% chance of occurring, but might not have occurred (if you happen to be looking at one of the 10% of universes in which it didn't occur).

So, you will be choosing both to do something that isn't risky, and you will be choosing to do something that is risky. In either case, the sum should be the same.

No?

Again, yes and no. Keep in mind that quantum theory doesn't allow for free will, so really the question is moot. But let's pretend that we do have free will and that we must accept responsibility for the results of our actions. If we choose an action that has a 90% probability of producing a negative result, we should see the negative result in 90% of the universes that branch from our universe. If we chose a less-risky action that has only a 10% probability of producing a negative result, we should see the negative result in only 10% of the universes that branch from our universe. Therefore, we should ethically choose the less-risky behavior. This is true whether or not many-worlds is true (without many-worlds, a riskier behavior has a higher probability of producing the negative result).

Of course, it would be an understatement to characterize my description as a vast oversimplification. Here is a pretty good introduction to quantum theory. Groucho Marx was accurate when he said "Very interesting theory - it makes no sense at all."

-Bri

 

[Tez]

For similar many-worlds blather search around for supposedly respectable physicists writing about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide ...

 

[Dark Jaguar]

But still, as he said and as I was attempting to say, if you pick one, another branch will be the one that picked another. Whether the universes are off of your "branch" or not, you are still responsible as you know this to be the case.

So, I suggest "selfish world morality". Do what's best for the universe you are in rather than what's best for that other branch.

 

[Bri]

That's not how quantum theory works.

Sure, in a certain number of parallel branches your "clones" can make choices that differ from yours, but that's not the point. Your choice doesn't affect what your clones will choose in another branch at all. If we have free will, then all of your clones could make the same choice that you make.

The question doesn't concern the choices of your clones in other branches. It concerns your choices in your branch, and how they affect the universes that branch from your branch.

If you are free to choose, you will increase the probability of something bad happening in universes that branch from yours by making a risky choice, and as a result more universes that branch from yours will see negative effects.

-Bri

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Again, yes and no. Keep in mind that quantum theory doesn't allow for free will, so really the question is moot. But let's pretend that we do have free will and that we must accept responsibility for the results of our actions. If we choose an action that has a 90% probability of producing a negative result, we should see the negative result in 90% of the universes that branch from our universe. If we chose a less-risky action that has only a 10% probability of producing a negative result, we should see the negative result in only 10% of the universes that branch from our universe. Therefore, we should ethically choose the less-risky behavior. This is true whether or not many-worlds is true (without many-worlds, a riskier behavior has a higher probability of producing the negative result).

Sorry, maybe i'm dence, but i still don't get it, if you choose an action that has a 90% probalitity of producing a negative result instead of one that has a 10% probability of producing a negative result, why won't there be a branch where the other option was chosen?

Yes, i may very well be missunderstanding QM, but i don't understand why it wouldn't branch.

 

[Bri]

Sorry, maybe i'm dence, but i still don't get it, if you choose an action that has a 90% probalitity of producing a negative result instead of one that has a 10% probability of producing a negative result, why won't there be a branch where the other option was chosen?

If your choice was completely random (rather than the result of free will), then what you describe would be the case, but then the discussion would be moot because you wouldn't have any control over your actions. If you have free choice, then so do your "clones." There is no reason to think that just because you make a particular choice that a clone in another universe must make the opposite choice.

Yes, i may very well be missunderstanding QM, but i don't understand why it wouldn't branch.

You are describing an intelligent universe that knows what choice you've made and then creates a new universe where a clone of you is forced to make the opposite choice.

-Bri

 

[Cecil]

Tobias, interesting points. I hadn't considered that your original choice of action was itself a branching point.

The way it seems to me, now, is that the entire history and future of the universe are already decided from the instant of creation. There exists, atemporally, a multiverse containing a very large number of universes. Each universe has its own unique history, though many of them share a history up to some specific point; these can be considered to have "branched" at that point. There exists a unique "branch" at every time in every universe for which there were multiple ways that universe could have proceeded.

So really, when you say you "choose" to do something, you're not actually creating new branches, you're merely deciding in which branch in the pre-existing multiverse you will continue to exist. In this sense, it makes no difference to any of the other copies of you what you choose to do, since their branches would have existed regardless of your choice.

In short, the only effect of your choices is to decide in which branch the camera of your consciousness is located. Your free will does not have the causative power to create new branches, since it will always have been the case that you could have decided differently.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

If your choice was completely random (rather than the result of free will), then what you describe would be the case, but then the discussion would be moot because you wouldn't have any control over your actions. If you have free choice, then so do your "clones." There is no reason to think that just because you make a particular choice that a clone in another universe must make the opposite choice.



You are describing an intelligent universe that knows what choice you've made and then creates a new universe where a clone of you is forced to make the opposite choice.

-Bri

Ah, ok, i wasn't aware that i had free will. Have the matter of free will in the Wheeler many world interpretation ever been investigated?

Do we know whether or not, within the Wheeler interpretation, we would have free will?

But, i don't think we need an intelligent universe for it to branch like i say. If there is a 90% probability of you choosing something that isn't dangerous, then it should make a lot of branches and in 10% of them you would choose something that is dangerous.

And all you can do is decide if you wanna be part of the 90% lot or the 10% lot. That is how i see it.

This is very interesting Bri.

Sincerely
Tobias

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Tobias, interesting points. I hadn't considered that your original choice of action was itself a branching point.

The way it seems to me, now, is that the entire history and future of the universe are already decided from the instant of creation. There exists, atemporally, a multiverse containing a very large number of universes. Each universe has its own unique history, though many of them share a history up to some specific point; these can be considered to have "branched" at that point. There exists a unique "branch" at every time in every universe for which there were multiple ways that universe could have proceeded.

So really, when you say you "choose" to do something, you're not actually creating new branches, you're merely deciding in which branch in the pre-existing multiverse you will continue to exist. In this sense, it makes no difference to any of the other copies of you what you choose to do, since their branches would have existed regardless of your choice.

In short, the only effect of your choices is to decide in which branch the camera of your consciousness is located. Your free will does not have the causative power to create new branches, since it will always have been the case that you could have decided differently.

I wouldn't say it was decided before hand, but yes, that is kinda like how i see it. We simply choose which branch we are in, and another us will be in the other branches.

 

[Beerina]

Just for fun, let's assume Wheeler's many-worlds interpretation is correct. Here's a question: Do we now have to worry about quantum ethics? Here's a (over)simplified example of what I mean: you engage in some very risky behavior or other, that has a high probability of injury or death -- say, some extreme-sport that only the slackers in a Mountain Dew commercial would try. You miraculously make it through the event unscathed. But in a significant number of the universes that have split off, chances are you've splattered your brains/drowned/been rent limb from limb, though these universes are forever cut off from the "you" that you perceive.

Actually, this would essentially never be the case. The quantum differences are worlds where each quantum "measurement" or interaction that "collapses the wave function" turn out differently. This would, via the butterfly effect, percolate upwards inevitably and in all cases until, some time later, the world truly deviates. An interaction might eventually cause a particle to deviate, soon the particles of the atmosphere are bouncing around differently, with different micro-eddys, which percolates upwards until there are different weather patterns. Soon people are, for practical reasons, copulating at different times, different sperm fertilize different ova, and in about 20 years you have a completely different generation of people who wouldn't have otherwise existed.

Any "yous" would, if they exist, start leading a slightly different life at about the time the weather patterns started changing. So they'd do different things. But there would be no "quantum moment" to help you decide, or not, to ride the mountain bike out the back of the C130 cargo plane with a can of Mountain Dew in your hand. Oh, it might be theoretically possible that, say, a particular subatomic particle in your brain might, at that exact moment, disintegrate, causing electro-chemistry to alter slightly, reversing a decision if you were on the ragged edge of deciding, but that's a very contrived situation that statistically probably would never happen.

It's also been suggested that having the entire universe split into quadrillions of copies every single microscopic instant of time, for every single of the 10^^60 particles in the universe (and every one of the far greater number of clones, remember!) would be the ultimate violation of Occam's Razor.

What's the point? The point is your conscious thoughts and decisions are not quantum variance points any more than any other large, macroscopic activity any arbitrary large conglomeration of atoms is engaged in.

 

[nescafe]

It's also been suggested that having the entire universe split into quadrillions of copies every single microscopic instant of time, for every single of the 10^^60 particles in the universe (and every one of the far greater number of clones, remember!) would be the ultimate violation of Occam's Razor.

Which I why I consider the Many-worlds interpretation useless for this sort of philosophical musing. Since I can use it to justify just about any action, I can totally ignore it for ethical purposes.

 

[Bri]

Ah, ok, i wasn't aware that i had free will. Have the matter of free will in the Wheeler many world interpretation ever been investigated?

Do we know whether or not, within the Wheeler interpretation, we would have free will?

Well, according to quantum theory, you don't have free will, and the question posed in the OP is really moot. Which is why I (and others) have said that this discussion is silly and nonsensical. In order for the question in the OP to have any meaning, we would have to assume that you do have free will, which would preclude your choice from being determined by probability as quantum theory would suggest.

But, i don't think we need an intelligent universe for it to branch like i say. If there is a 90% probability of you choosing something that isn't dangerous, then it should make a lot of branches and in 10% of them you would choose something that is dangerous.

Yes, you're correct about that, but then you have no free will and the question posed in the OP is meaningless. There's no point in asking whether you're responsible for something that's determined randomely.

And all you can do is decide if you wanna be part of the 90% lot or the 10% lot. That is how i see it.

This is very interesting Bri.

Well, here's where your theory and quantum theory would differ. Quantum theory wouldn't allow you to decide which lot you belong to. In fact, if many-worlds is correct, you belong to ALL of them (all of your "clones" are you -- there is no single "real" you).

Quantum theory is interesting, but Groucho was right. And the more you look into it, the less sense it actually makes. There are some very bizarre implications to quantum theory that are very difficult to wrap one's head around, such as the mere observation of something having a real affect on it.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

The way it seems to me, now, is that the entire history and future of the universe are already decided from the instant of creation. There exists, atemporally, a multiverse containing a very large number of universes. Each universe has its own unique history, though many of them share a history up to some specific point; these can be considered to have "branched" at that point. There exists a unique "branch" at every time in every universe for which there were multiple ways that universe could have proceeded.

An interesting theory that meshes with the idea of free will, but there is no evidence of it. Also, there is no known mechanism by which we would "choose" which of the universes we jump to when we make a choice.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

It's also been suggested that having the entire universe split into quadrillions of copies every single microscopic instant of time, for every single of the 10^^60 particles in the universe (and every one of the far greater number of clones, remember!) would be the ultimate violation of Occam's Razor.

Oddly, the other interpretations of quantum theory are so much more bizarre that many-worlds is considered to be in compliance with Occam's Razor, and is therefore considered by some to be the most likely. Many-worlds doesn't require the wave function of the universe to collapse upon an observation as do other interpretations. From Wikipedia:

Perhaps more significantly, Peres seems to suggest that positing the existence of an infinite number of non-communicating parallel universes is highly suspect as it violates Occam's Razor. Proponents of MWI argue precisely the opposite, by applying Occam's Razor to the set of assumptions rather than multiplicity of universes.

What's the point? The point is your conscious thoughts and decisions are not quantum variance points any more than any other large, macroscopic activity any arbitrary large conglomeration of atoms is engaged in.

Yeah, yeah, but if you overanalyze it, you render the conversation moot (which, of course, it is). What fun is that?

-Bri