It's satisfying to think of one's self as multidimensional, as a being capable of experiencing all possible avenues accessible from moment to moment. It allows us to imagine that the future, our future, is not set in concrete; that our destiny is not a foregone conclusion, which in itself is a positive thing. In our world, we might have to live with the negative consequences of a choice we've made, but, we somehow find comfort through this belief in alternative selves that in another universe another self has made possibly better choices. As in the movie, we imagine there's an actual physical connection with the many other versions of ourselves, as though the entire set were a single entity, an equivalence class or, in quantum-speak, a superposition of I. What is that? Are we toying with multiphrenia?
Herein lies the paradox, however. Any other selves in parallel universes are going to have a history of experiences and memories quite different than ours. We're in our car at a red light, the light changes and we make a right turn. In another universe, we make a left; yet in another, we go straight. The subsequent series of actions -- our life trajectory -- will be quite different in these different universes. In a very real sense, therefore, they will each be a unique individual. The common denominator is our biological make-up, which will, nonetheless, be strongly affected in its expression by the diversity of environments these separate selves will come to know. Accordingly, that biological identity will necessarily develop and evolve along its own line. Ultimately, assuming a prehistory of individuals making choices at variance with the ones we make, our alternative versions won't be like us at all. Each of our multiple identities will veer off along paths chosen from moment to moment. And beyond the present, after so many generations, the genomes of those alternative selves will have diffused themselves throughout their respective populations through their progeny. So, in fact, from a purely logical vantage point: there will never be a time when alternative selves can simultaneously co-exist across the multiverse. Do I hear self-contradiction?
There's no real reason to believe that the Many Worlds idea, constructed as a gimmick to explain the actual whereabouts of quantum possibilities after a measurement, has anything at all to do with the macro-manifestations of alternative selves acting within the confines of parallel universes. In fact, from a purely physical law point-of-view, another possible eigenstate of a quantum system existing in our universe, much less a macro-sized being, couldn't exist in an alternative cosmos unless it was an exact isomorphic duplicate [highly unlikely]. Otherwise, the natural laws regulating those other universes would preclude such precisely identical manifestations, even if they were only slightly different or lacking in some way [variation of constants, masses, and forces]. And, for the sake of argument, in the case where these alternative realities were precisely identical, as far as traveling to another bubble universe in our multiverse is concerned, we'd come up against a violation of the Laws of Matter and Energy Conservation.
The same kind of misinterpretation based on Darwinism led to eugenics and the idea of the superman -- survival of the fittest. Fittest, in that misunderstood context, simply meant whoever was the biggest, strongest, toughest and most ruthless. The dominant one or people had the natural right to rule because it was nature's way, according to Darwin's principle of survival of the fittest, which he thought of as a synonym for natural selection. More nonsense. Fittest, as explained eloquently by those who actually study such things [Dawkins, Gould, Dennet], has to do with adapting to and immersing in the immediate environment -- the ecosystem -- in a cooperative way. Finding an open niche and exploiting it, not enslaving other species who have already found niches. He who is able to do that can be considered fit, not he who has managed to dominate all other species through wholesale competition and, moreover, in the case of man, has nature itself under his thumb.
We have this tendency to co-opt ideas from science to justify beliefs and behaviour emanating from and restricted to our personal desires. Those who propose survival of the fittest as a perfectly decent rationale for classism, racism and genocide do so out of the conviction that they fall into the favored category. Narcissism and the will to special status have caused misery and tragedy since mankind's time began, and, as with so many things of that ilk, are wholly ironic.
And as regards the Many Worlds delusion, if there are any other Adrian Dorns in some parallel universe, I really don't care. Good luck to him. It's a ridiculous untenable idea, incapable of proof and therefore having no operational meaning, not even for quantum particles. I accept the multiverse concept as probable, but not the mistaken implication that within an uncountable number of other bubbble universes, a finite subset can be found that is an exact clone and somewhere on some planet in them there exists another me.
We humans with our egos are forever projecting ideas onto the mind at large that represent an anthropocentric belief. And, it is a belief only, a hope based on nothing more than the perverse notion that God has given us special status. I think that's one of the main reasons why the Many Worlds idea is so easily adopted. God didn't create just one of us, unique for all time and space, but rather millions, trillions of us scattered amongst parallel universes that go on forever.
A collection of selves smeared throughout the multiverse as separate individuals, or a single self partitioned into the class of the fittest represent the same thing -- the will to special status. We simply cannot and will not accept that human beings -- human animals -- are a one time and one place experiment of nature. Our focus, therefore, should not be on increasing our sense of self-importance -- undermined somewhat by the Copernican revolution -- but instead the emphasis should be on exploring our interconnections with the rest of life, with the planet we share, and with this one and only one universe we will ever know -- our home.
I was watching a movie called The One about a man who travels to one parallel universe after another killing alternative selves in order to capture their energy or soul or whatever with the end goal of concentrating their power in him and of being the only ONE of him in the multiverse -- a singular self. What nonsense. Talk about an ego. This idea of the existence of other selves making different choices and living different paths in other universes is widespread and common. I've heard people who have no scientific background whatsoever talking with glib certainty about the plurality of parallel identities as though it were a known fact. Of all the popularized scientific ideas floating around the water cooler, this one stands out as the most discussed. I think its attraction is obvious.