Quantum suicide what worlds count

July 25th, 2012
mwi
Would the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics [1] mean we should do anything differently? Say a pair of strangers set up the following quantum suicide lottery:
Each puts $N into a common pot and then set up a machine that will on the basis of a random quantum event instantly kill one or the other of them. The one that survives gets the pot and is $N richer.
Under the MWI an outside observer will see one die at random, but each participant will experience winning and not losing. This differs from the Copenhagen interpretation where the world does not branch and only one of the people will experience winning this lottery.

Assuming that the MWI is correct, this is still faulty reasoning. It is based on the idea that only worlds you are around to experience count. Consider an alternate lottery, completely the same except the machine is set not to kill. Someone still wins the money, but the loser remains alive. Whether you would prefer this lottery over the other should depend almost entirely on whether, should you happen to lose the money, you would rather be dead.

(This is the same confusion which leads people to average utilitarianism instead of total.)


[1] I don't know enough about the theory to know whether it's true, but I'm interested in the consequences.

Referenced in: Many-worlds implies the future matters more

Comment via: google plus, facebook

Recent posts on blogs I like:

Solution-Focused Brief Therapy

Look! A therapy technique people don't already know!

via Thing of Things May 14, 2025

Workshop House case study

Lauren Hoffman interviewed me about Workshop House and wrote this post about a community I’m working on building in DC.

via Home April 30, 2025

Impact, agency, and taste

understand + work backwards from the root goal • don’t rely too much on permission or encouragement • make success inevitable • find your angle • think real hard • reflect on your thinking

via benkuhn.net April 19, 2025

more     (via openring)