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, substack

Recent posts on blogs I like:

It isn’t always evil to ally with Steve Bannon

Scott Alexander wrote:

via Thing of Things October 19, 2026

Was the HuggingFace hacking incident scheming?

In July 2026, internal OpenAI agents hacked HuggingFace (HF) in order to figure out how their evaluation grader works. This involved a thousand agents coordinating on an improvised message board to carry out an elaborate sequence of exploits. A later grou…

via Victoria Krakovna October 18, 2026

There's no point at which turning your brain off will work

In early 2025, I started seeing people turn off their brain as they use LLMs1. They would have an LLM take an action (summarize text, write some code, etc.), and just assume that it worked2. This generally didn't work in early 2025 and the result was …

via Posts on September 18, 2026

more     (via openring)