Parallel Worlds, Parallel Lives

"In every journey, the traveller must ask 'Was the right path taken?'... Those who watch the track too closely often fail to see where the path leads them."

Yesterday, in a moment of irritation, I chose the universe where the answer to a question was 'No' instead of 'Yes'. I did it consciously, because I knew that the answer was likely to be 'Yes', and I didn't want to deal with what followed a 'Yes' answer.

In your 4-dimensional world, you don't believe that such a thing is possible, and therefore I did nothing wrong. Run along then.

In a 5-dimensional world, there are questions... Did I simply alter my own trajectory through the smear/multiverse by steering myself towards the outcome I wanted? Or did my actions have a substantive effect on the other party?

If I simply altered my own trajectory, then, again, I have done nothing wrong. My choice to select that particular outcome may or may not impact my subsequent ability to make similar choices, but the morality of my decision to choose an outcome is a non-issue by any traditional code of right and wrong, as my decision did not affect someone else.

However, if I argue that the essence of observers and their observations is somehow linked together, and consensus reality reflects a summing together of those influences, then I must accept that my decision did affect someone else, and we then face a myriad of questions as to the morality of my action.

Arguing from this perspective assumes that every observer of an outcome exerts some influence on the outcome that is selected, though perhaps this influence is unequally distributed among the observers. If all observers remain unaware of their ability to influence the outcome, then again, no question of morality exists, as no one is intentionally acting on this knowledge. If one or more of the observers is aware and can make a conscious attempt to influence the outcome (and we're only discussing a non-local influence right now), then a question of relative power arises. An aware observer may or may not be the strongest agent in the selection of a particular outcome. But their awareness of their ability to consciously act puts an additional burden of responsibility upon them when faced with an opportunity to act.

By what ethics should an aware observer be bound when consciously acting to select a particular outcome? I touched on this briefly in earlier writings, but I always intended to explore the foundations of that ethic further, as it seems to come from people who have the most experience in consciously selecting outcomes. Though not explicitly stated in that particular ethical principle, the consensus seems to be that acting to suppress another person's free will harms that person, and therefore should be avoided.

How does this relate to my relative ability to select an outcome? As an aware observer who can, hypothetically, exercise a stronger influence upon the selection of the final state/outcome, am I admonished to refrain from doing so because my influence may suppress that of another person? Are we justified in equating the influence that a particular observer brings to bear on the process of state selection with his/her will?

That's an important question that warrants further exploration.