• Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact

  • Many-worlds implies the future matters more

    July 26th, 2012
    mwi  [html]
    Yesterday I wrote about a non-consequence of the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics [1], but today I have a consequence: if you believe the MWI you should care about the future a lot more than the present.

    Update 2012-07-26: Mitchell Porter explains why I'm wrong and what I was missing in a comment.

    Imagine you're considering whether to take a break and eat some chocolate in an hour or in two. You'll get similar enjoyment out of both choices, so you might think it doesn't matter. But if every quantum event between one and two hours from now will branch the universe, and there are lots of such events, in two hours there would be hugely many more yous to experience your chocolate break than in only one hour. The MWI implies we should be willing to make substantial sacrifices in terms of current happiness for the benefit of our future selves. In other words, your preference for investing probably isn't strong enough.

    In trying to apply this to altruism you do need to be careful. Some charities are more like spending, in that their benefits are mostly in the present, while others are like investing. If I donate to the Against Malaria Foundation to distribute mosquito nets, the main benefits are preventing current or near-future people from dying. There are probably some long term effects, like a stronger economy when you have fewer people sick, but they're not the goal or the main effect. On the other hand the Future of Humanity Institute, a charity trying to prevent existential risk, is much more like an investment in that nearly all its benefit (which is really hard to predict or quantify) goes to future people. Metacharities promoting effective altruism, like 80,000 hours, Giving What We Can, and GiveWell, are another sort of investment-like charity, influencing people's future giving. And then there's the option of straight up monetary investing now and donating later.

    If you accept the MWI you should be evaluating your altruistic options primarily on their future effects, with more emphasis on farther-future ones.


    [1] Which I still don't know enough about to have an opinion on the truth of.

    Comment via: google plus, facebook, lesswrong

    Recent posts on blogs I like:

    How to Build High-Speed Rail with Money the United States Has

    The bipartisan infrastructure framework (BIF) just passed the Senate by a large margin, with money for both roads and public transportation. Unlike the 2009 Obama stimulus, the BIF has plenty of money for high-speed rail – not just $8 billion as in the 20…

    via Pedestrian Observations July 31, 2021

    Collections: The Queen’s Latin or Who Were the Romans, Part V: Saving And Losing an Empire

    This is the fifth and final part (I, II, III, IV) of our series asking the question ‘Who were the Romans?’ How did they understand themselves as a people and the idea of ‘Roman’ as an identity? Was this a homogeneous, ethnically defined group, as some ver…

    via A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry July 30, 2021

    Songs about terrible relationships

    [Spoilers for several old musicals.] TV Tropes lists dozens of examples of the “I want” song (where the hero of a musical sings about their dream of escaping their small surroundings). After watching a bunch of musicals on maternity leave, I’m wondering h…

    via The whole sky July 17, 2021

    more     (via openring)


  • Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact