Challenging MANY-WORLDS with EVOLUTIONARY THEORY

Can Evolution hints us into the right interpretation of Quantum Mechanics ?

I, once again, prompted Grok to argument a reasoning I have been doing and that I implied in the “A simple mathematical proof of Free Will” piece:

“ MANY-WORLDS can be disproven given that all creatures have their behavior very aligned to their intention to survive and maximize their wellbeing, and if MANY WORLDS was real, it would be extremely hard to live in the World where all the creatures act in self interest, with almost no acts of incoherent randomness given that one would expect a lot more variance in animal behavior in most of the MANY-WORLD’s timelines. Break down this argument please.”

Too little randomness in Animal behavior.

This was its output:

Your argument seems to connect the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics with observable creature behavior, using the consistency of survival-driven actions to question whether MWI can be disproven. Let’s break it down step-by-step to clarify the reasoning and explore its implications.

1. Premise: Creatures Act in Alignment with Survival and Wellbeing

You start by observing that creatures — humans, animals, etc. — generally behave in ways that promote their survival and maximize their wellbeing. This is a fair generalization: evolution favors traits that enhance survival, so behaviors like eating, avoiding danger, and seeking comfort dominate. There’s little “incoherent randomness” (e.g., a deer suddenly leaping off a cliff for no reason) because natural selection weeds out self-destructive tendencies over time.

2. Introducing Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI)

MWI posits that every quantum event spawns multiple parallel universes, each realizing a different possible outcome. For example, if a quantum particle could go left or right, both happen — one in each separate “world.” Applied broadly, this suggests a vast number of timelines where every possible variation of events occurs, no matter how improbable.

3. Expectation Under MWI

Here’s where your argument pivots: if MWI is true, you’d expect some worlds to exhibit wild variance in creature behavior. Why? Because quantum events underlie everything, including brain processes and decisions. In some timelines, random quantum fluctuations might lead to bizarre, incoherent actions — like a bird flying into a fire or a human refusing food for no reason — since all possibilities must happen somewhere. With an infinite or near-infinite number of worlds, the range of behavioral outcomes should span from perfectly rational to utterly chaotic.

4. Observation: Lack of Variance in Our World

Yet, in the world we experience, behavior is remarkably consistent. Creatures don’t act randomly — they follow patterns tied to survival and wellbeing. You’re suggesting that this uniformity is striking: we don’t see the kind of chaotic variance you might expect if every possible quantum outcome were playing out across many worlds. Instead, we seem to live in a timeline where actions align almost exclusively with self-interest and coherence.

5. Core Claim: This Challenges Disproving MWI

Your argument concludes that this consistency makes it “extremely hard” to disprove MWI. If MWI were real, you’d think we’d be more likely to inhabit a world with noticeable randomness — where creatures sometimes act against their own interests due to quantum quirks. Since we don’t see that, it’s as if we’re stuck in an improbably orderly timeline. This raises a paradox: either MWI is false (because we don’t observe the expected variance), or it’s true but nearly impossible to falsify (because we can’t access the chaotic worlds).

Analysis and Potential Holes

• Strength: The argument cleverly uses the predictability of behavior to question MWI’s implications. If all possibilities occur, why do we only see the “sensible” ones? It’s a bit like asking why we’re always dealt a perfect hand in a multiverse of shuffled decks — it feels too convenient.
• Weakness: MWI doesn’t necessarily predict observable randomness in our world. Proponents might argue that quantum effects average out at the macroscopic level (via decoherence), so creature behavior remains consistent within each timeline. The crazy worlds exist, but we’re inherently bound to perceive only our own coherent branch. Your point about expecting “more variance” assumes we’d somehow detect those other worlds, which MWI says we can’t.
• Alternative Explanation: Deterministic forces (evolution, physics) could override quantum randomness in any given world, making survival-driven behavior the norm everywhere, not just here. This would mean our orderly timeline isn’t special — it’s just how physics works.

Grok’s Take

It’s a thought-provoking angle! You’re right that the lack of “incoherent randomness” feels significant — why don’t we see more outliers if every possibility plays out? But MWI could dodge this by claiming each world self-regulates via the same laws of nature, keeping behavior in check. It’s less about disproving MWI and more about highlighting how slippery it is to test. What’s your next step — any way to tighten the logic further?

My Take

I think it’s a pretty good argument against MWI.

Gracias,

Ee