If you had a machine that created a window through which you could see the future, and in the future you wrote down the winning lottery numbers and relayed that information to your present self before that lottery number was drawn.
However, in your present selfs excitement, you turn off the machine before your future self wrote the winning lottery numbers into it for your past self.
What would happen?
Except for the fact it makes every decision, every moment of tension and every event that occurs irrelevant, because an infinite number of universe exist in which the events occurred and in which they didn’t occur.
I don’t see that as a problem. Every possibility co-exists, and every reality is equally real. Every moment and decision forks the universe in infinite ways, but you get to choose the one where you go.
You can save a drowning person, or let them die, but in the big picture, it won’t matter. That person will drown infinitely many ways anyway, but there are also infinitely many universes where they get saved. Don’t worry about the big picture. What matters, is how you act and how the world acts on you in this universe.
Apologies, I copied and pasted the answer below from another reply I made elsewhere in this thread
==
I’m not talking about about the possibility of real infinite dimensions. I’m talking about sci fi, and stories, which is the context of the OPs question.
In a “real” scenario, the experience that matters is the one I’m having, not the one other versions of me might be having.
But in a story, there is no “true” timeline, or a more “real” timeline. They’re all being retold to us indirectly, and the choice of the version of the person retelling those experiences is arbitrary by the author. It doesn’t matter what perspective the author chooses, because every other outcome also happened, the author just didn’t tell us those stories.
I think the disconnect here is between objective and subjective meaning. In an infinite multiverse, ‘reality’ isn’t a singular objective truth—it’s a collection of subjective experiences. But that doesn’t erase meaning; it just means meaning is something we assign, not something inherent.
You’re right that if every possible outcome exists, no single timeline is ‘objectively’ special. But in fiction (and arguably in reality), what matters is the perspective we focus on. A story isn’t weakened by the existence of other timelines—it’s strengthened by the fact that, out of infinite possibilities, this particular one is being told. The act of choosing a narrative is what gives it weight.
It’s the difference between nihilism (‘nothing matters, so why care?’) and absurdism (‘nothing matters* inherently, so we get to decide what does’). A multiverse doesn’t have to make things meaningless—it can highlight how rare and significant certain choices are, precisely because most versions of a person might not make them (e.g., Invincible).
I get the sense you’re resistant to this because it feels like it undermines objective meaning. But what if meaning was never objective to begin with?
Think of it this way.
“I went back in time to save my family” in an infinite timelines story means that going back in time spawns in infinite number of worlds that didn’t exist before, in which the family doesn’t make it, and an infinite number in which they do. And not a single one of those families is the “real” family of the person who went back in time.
The fact that the author choose to focus on one perspective in which it seems like the time travel has made a difference, doesn’t change the fact that it didn’t make a difference, and the family they were trying to save is gone. The infinite copies weren’t “saved” from anything, because there are infinite versions that weren’t.
The only way to tell a meaningful story in that situation is to create situation where the actions of jumping back in time alter the future of the person jumping back in time. And that means you either suck up the paradoxes, or you write a clever story in which the paradoxes are neatly accounted for before they ever occur (or you write a closed loop story)
Edit - Or you could tell a non infinite loop story, where a single universe is spawned by the act of jumping back in time. That still won’t save the “real” versions of the family you jumped back to save, they’re still gone, but at least it creates only a single version of them that the character can save.
Even knowing that everything happens every way in some other branch of the wave function (other universes) doesn’t really affect our own little section of it. There’s no communications or travel, so other universes if they exist have the same meaning to us as if they don’t. Except in time travel stories like this.
Besides, the same “irrelevance” of decisions and events comes free with even one single universe given that it’s deterministic - as physics seems to be. (Yeah there’s quantum randomness, but random doesn’t help either)
That said I still believe in free will and the importance of decisions. I just think it has to be defined so weakly that it still works in a deterministic universe. (So I have free will, but so do dice and pocket calculators.)
I’m not talking about about the possibility of real infinite dimensions. I’m talking about sci fi, and stories, which is the context of the OPs question.
In a “real” scenario, the experience that matters is the one I’m having, not the one other versions of me might be having.
But in a story, there is no “true” timeline, or a more “real” timeline. They’re all being retold to us indirectly, and the choice of the version of the person retelling those experiences is arbitrary by the author. It doesn’t matter what perspective the author chooses, because every other outcome also happened, the author just didn’t tell us those stories.
That would be the most boring story ever.
It becomes interesting at that point where one (or some) of the possibilities get a special meaning “above” all the others.
That’s exactly my point! In an infinite timelines story, there is nothing that has special meaning over the others, making it boring, because it’s all irrelevant!
I get what you mean, but I have to disagree a bit. The slice of the multiverse we’re looking at is special because we’re looking at it. It only makes it irrelevant if the slices are treated as fully replaceable.
Take for example Invincible. The comics & series focus on a young superhero who could have become incredibly evil, but didn’t. The multiverse is used to highlight this: it shows alternative versions of him that did become evil, and it even says that most alternative versions did so. This makes the version of him we focus on that much more special, and allows for interesting character progression through being confronted with his fears.
But it only works because of the restraint of the writers, never showing us another good version of Invincible, only focusing on evil alternatives.
Invincible can’t move between the infinite timelines though, and no storyline is hanging off of the important changes he makes those timelines by travelling through time/dimensions. He’s not “saving” anyone by jumping through to another universe
Yes, that’s the restraint the writers are showing. That’s my point: the issue isn’t the multiverse aspect itself, it’s the replacability brought on by unrestrained multiverse implementations.
I’d say that the one that’s written is the ‘true’ timeline in the story the same way that the reality we experience is the only one that matters.
The reality I experience is the only one that matters to me. To an outside observer, all of them are as equally real and there is no true timeline.
In a story, there is no real, there is only outside observers…