Funeral for a Civilized Species: A Science Fiction Story

The grim group of extraterrestrial visitors convened amidst the ruins of the greatest city of the intelligent species that had now become extinct. A ceremony was held to mark the end of an unsuccessful experiment of evolution. The ceremony was held in front of the rusting ruins of a pyramid constructed by the race that had perished.

“When in the course of cosmic events, a civilized species fails its planetary test, and becomes completely extinct,” said the ceremony leader solemnly, “it is fitting that we gather together to mourn this great biological tragedy, and examine why the light of civilization was so sadly extinguished.”

The visitors had come from five different planets to participate in the funeral ritual, and to finalize their historical records on the civilized race that had perished. The visitors were all specialists in galactic history and the evolution of intelligent races. Some had limbs of metal and plastic; some had huge eyes and shiny skin; others had long, curved necks and triangular ears.

After the ceremonial ritual was completed, the visitors gathered together for a historical discussion of the tragedy.

“So let me ask for your expert assessments,” said the event leader. “What was the main reason why this civilized race finally became extinct?"

“It is puzzling,” said one of the visitors. “Here was a race with every opportunity for success. They had this glorious little blue-green planet with such large, lovely oceans. Their planet was the right distance from the sun. They had an abundance of mineral resources. How could they have squandered such a golden chance?”

“I think the main reason for their demise was that they never were able to rise above their primitive jungle instincts for violence,” said another visitor. “They always loved war, and never realized that as a race's technology grows more and more advanced, war must be abolished if a civilized race is to survive.”

“I think the main reason for their ruin was environmental,” said another visitor. “They kept burning fossil fuels without restraint. It caused their planet to get hotter and hotter. They were so short-sighted, they couldn't see they were burying themselves in the long run.”

“They never learned to conserve,” said another visitor. “They had a great inheritance of fossil fuels, but they kept using it up at ever-more profligate rates of consumption. When their fossil fuels started to run out, they weren't prepared. They started fighting with each other more and more over their dwindling resources.”

“Part of the problem was political and economic,” said another visitor. “They let their wealth get concentrated in the hands of a few. It helped to bring about an utter collapse of their economy, which played a large part in their downfall.”

“They put too much faith in technology,” said another visitor. “They always thought there would be some new invention that would save them. But they had to save themselves, by changing their thinking and habits. They could never do that.”

“It was partially their religion,” said the event leader. “As their problems got worse and worse, they always thought that the deity of their religion would intervene and save them from doom. They failed to realize that it was their duty and responsibility to save themselves from doom.”

The relevant facts were gathered, and a historical report was issued that summarized the reasons for the extinction of the once promising species. Finally the group decided to clear away almost all the ruins of the vanished civilization. Self-reproducing robots were brought in to do the job. The visitors decided that the planet would be restored almost entirely to its natural state.

It was decided there would be two historical ruins that would be preserved. The sites that were chosen were made of solid stone, and believed to be places that could last for thousands of years, without being maintained. At both of the sites, a museum was constructed, and was filled with writings, artistic works, and historical records of the vanished civilized species. The museums were not designed for anyone still left on the planet, for all of the original civilized inhabitants were dead. The museums were designed for any interplanetary visitors who might visit the planet, or any civilized race that might evolve on the planet in the distant future.

Finally the visitors were all done with their work, and it was time for them all to leave, to return to the planets they called home in other solar systems. The visitors from one planet gathered together in their spaceship, getting ready for blast-off. One of the visitors made a final comment about the sad extinction of the vanished race that had lived on the planet they were about to leave.

“Our very distant ancestors many thousands of years ago faced problems similar to those which this vanished race faced,” said the visitor. “But our ancestors triumphed over such challenges. If the dice of history had rolled differently long, long ago, our ancestors might have met the dismal fate of this extinct race. How different things would have been then! There never would have been ten thousand far-flung interstellar settlements on a thousand planets in a hundred solar systems, which all were descended from that peerless source of galactic colonization, that great beacon of cosmic culture, the great mother planet known as planet Earth.”

What Kind of Phenomena Would Violate the Laws of Nature?

Skeptics often like to debunk alleged paranormal phenomena by saying, “That can't have happened, because it would be a violation of the laws of nature.” But how valid is such reasoning? Let's consider: what type of phenomena would or would not be a violation of the laws of nature? As we will see, the number of things that are clearly prohibited by the laws of nature is much smaller than one might at first think. In this post I will not try to persuade you that any of the phenomena I discuss is likely. I will merely discuss whether any of them is ruled out or excluded by the laws of nature.

Something That Occurs For a Completely Unknown Reason

Skeptics sometimes evoke the law of causality (the law that everything has a cause) when trying to exclude a wide range of phenomena. The reasoning goes like this: we don't understand what could have caused alleged phenomenon x, so we should not believe that phenomenon x occurred, because it would be a violation of the law of causality.

But this reasoning is fallacious. The fact that we have no understanding of the cause for a particular phenomenon does not mean that it did not have a cause. It is entirely possible that there are 1001 types of causes we do not understand because of our ignorance. In short, we can't really exclude any paranormal event on the basis of it being a violation of the law of causality, because there might always be some unknown possible cause.

Something That Suddenly Disappears

I do not know of anyone alleging a case of an object suddenly disappearing, although such disappearances are often parts of magic acts. Let's consider whether such an event would violate the laws of nature. There is a law of nature called the law of the conservation of mass and energy. This law holds that while matter can be converted to energy, and energy can be converted to matter, it is impossible to either create or destroy mass-energy. From the perspective of this law, a piece of matter cannot simply disappear, but it can be converted to energy. However, the formula for this conversion is Einstein's famous equation E = mc² . This means that converting even a very tiny piece of matter to energy would produce a gigantic amount of energy, greater than the energy of a H-bomb.

This might seem to suggest that it would be a violation of the laws of nature for an object to suddenly disappear, unless there was a gigantic release of energy at the same time. But this isn't necessarily so, because of some loopholes. For one thing, some paranormal process might have some strange ability to soak up the energy produced by the conversion of a piece of matter to energy. Secondly, when a piece of matter disappears it might simply be converted to a different form of matter. For example, a process might convert the atoms of a piece of solid matter into subatomic particles, which might dissipate into the air. Third, the matter in a disappearing object might pass through a space-time wormhole, and end up someplace else. Fourth, the matter in an object that disappears might simply be condensed. Since atoms are almost entirely empty space, some process might shrink those atoms to become matter too dense to be seen. In short, the sudden disappearance of something (without a huge explosion at the same time) would not necessarily violate any laws of nature.

Something That Suddenly Appears

The sudden appearance of small objects has been alleged by certain mediums, who claim that objects can sometimes appear as a result of communication with the dead. From the standpoint of the law of the conservation of mass and energy, the matter for a new object could be produced from energy, but a huge amount of energy would be needed. But there would be a simpler way to get the matter to make an object suddenly appear: just get it from the air. In theory, some paranormal process or technological process could grab as many protons, electrons, and neutrons as it needed from the ordinary air, and convert those subatomic particles into some material object. No one might notice the missing air, as other air in the atmosphere would move in instantly to fill the gap. So it would not seem to violate any laws of nature for a small object to suddenly appear somewhere. Another possibility is that the object might be prepared at some other location, and then transported through a space-time wormhole. After traveling through the wormhole, the object might seem to suddenly appear at a particular location.

Levitation

Levitation has been alleged to occur in certain seances, and certain Eastern mystics have claimed to have had a power of levitation. In the 19^th century numerous reputable witnesses claimed to have seen Daniel Dunglas Home levitate heavily weighted tables and himself.

D. D. Home, called the most interesting man in the world

Regardless of whether such claims are credible, levitation seems to involve no violation of the laws of nature. A naïve view is that levitation would violate the law of gravitation, but that isn't so. In order for something to levitate, you merely need some force underneath the object that equals the very weak gravitational force tending to keep the object on the ground. Such a force might be produced by any number of factors, normal or paranormal. The amount of energy needed for levitation of a person or table is almost trivial.

Sudden Physical Transformations

A literary example of a sudden physical transformation is the scriptural story of the changing of water into wine. Another example (just to imagine something randomly) is the changing of a rock into an apple. Are such things prohibited by the laws of nature? No. If such things were to occur, they would be just kind of rapid molecular reconfigurations, a rearrangement of atoms within some unit of space. Such a rearrangement would merely require some highly sophisticated power or technology. We can, for example, expect that super-advanced alien technologies might be able to do things such as quickly change rocks into apples, by using a very advanced molecular rearrangement technology.

Telepathy

Telepathy is sometimes declared to be a violation of the laws of nature on the basis that it violates "inverse square laws," and does not seem to diminish with distance. But this idea is fallacious. Telepathy might involve some type of energy we do not understand, one that does not follow an inverse square law. Currently cosmologists say that most of the universe's mass-energy is some completely mysterious energy known as dark energy.  Since we know nothing about what rules apply to such energy, we have no basis for assuming that some unknown or poorly understood energy must behave like other types of energy we do understand.

Precognition

Precognition (the alleged ability to learn about the future in a paranormal way) is sometimes declared to be a violation of the laws of nature, on the basis that it violates our understanding of the linear nature of time. But this statement is premature. We simply don't understand yet exactly how time works. Physicists have many strange theories about the nature of time, and it is possible that one such theory (or an accurate theory not yet imagined) may allow for precognition. Time may be a lot more complicated than the simple "film strip" idea we have of it.

“Miraculous” Cures

Some people claim that there are cases of very sick people who were suddenly cured in a way that cannot be accounted for. Would such a thing violate the laws of nature? No, it wouldn't. All alleged cases of miraculous cures can be classified as cases of molecular and atomic rearrangement, and as mentioned before, such rearrangement is not prohibited by the laws of nature. Any sufficiently advanced technology could achieve such rearrangements.

Life After Death

One popular idea about life after death is that there is some kind of soul that lives on after death. According to this thinking, life after death can be imagined as a kind of information preservation, state preservation, or partial state continuity. There is nothing in the laws of nature that prohibit such a thing. Another popular idea is the idea of the mass physical resurrection of the dead at some day of judgment. This idea seems to be declining in popularity, but it is not prohibited by the laws of nature. If one considers a particular person to simply be an arrangement of atoms, then a mass resurrection of the dead can be considered as simply a large-scale case of atomic or molecular rearrangement – rearranging randomly available atoms and molecules to match a previously existing arrangement of atoms. Such a possibility may be highly improbable, but is not clearly prohibited by the laws of nature.

The “What If Aliens Could Do It?” Thought Experiment

The next time you are tempted to exclude some alleged phenomenon on the basis of “that's impossible,” try this thought experiment. Imagine that our planet receives visitors from some gigantic extraterrestrial spaceship, and the visitors claim to be millions of years more advanced than us. Suppose the visitors then claim that they can do whatever paranormal thing you have ruled out as an impossibility. Would you then believe that such a thing is possible? If so, then you probably have no business ruling out such a possibility now on the basis of impossibility.

What Type of Phenomena Would Violate the Laws of Nature?

After considering all these cases of possible unusual phenomena that would not violate the laws of nature, I need to balance things by considering some possibilities that would violate the laws of nature. I can think of a few.

It would violate a law of nature for a very gigantic mass of particles to drift around in a particular small area of outer space without ever contracting into a denser state. That would violate the law of gravity.

It would violate a law of nature for a very large positive charge to exist in outer space for a long time 1 millimeter away from another very large positive charge, without the two ever flying apart from each other. That would violate a law of electromagnetism called Coulomb's law.

It would violate a law of nature for an asteroid hurtling between Jupiter and Mars to suddenly stop in space, without any force acting on it to stop its motion. That would violate Newton's first law of motion.

It would violate a law of nature if I sent out a radio signal from Earth, and it was instantly received by a radio receiver on Mars. That would violate a law that electromagnetic radiation cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

It would violate a law of nature if two cannons pointed at each fired iron cannon balls at each other, the balls collided at very high speed, and then simply fell directly to the ground, both resting next to each other (but unattached) at a spot below the point of collision. That would violate Newton's third law of motion.

So there are actually things we can imagine that would violate the laws of nature. But examples such as these are very different from the type of things one reads about in books about alleged paranormal phenomena. The laws of nature are almost never rules involving impossibility. The most fundamental laws of nature are most commonly “whenever” type of rules, rules such as “whenever x occurs, force y shall occur.”

In short, regardless of the credibility of claims of the paranormal, it seems that the laws of nature actually leave the door wide open to the possibility of such phenomena.

Dial P for Paranormal: ESP Experiments Involving Phones, Text Messages, and Email

Skeptics like to say over and over again, “There is no evidence for extrasensory perception.” But actually there is a huge mountain of evidence for ESP that has been carefully and systematically accumulated for over a hundred years. Attempting to refute all this evidence bit by bit would take a long time. So skeptics just take a convenient shortcut by saying, “There is no evidence for extrasensory perception.” Not an accurate claim, but at least it saves time.

It is sometimes said that systematic experimental work on ESP started out with the work of J.B. Rhine at Duke University, although in truth evidence for the phenomenon has been carefully collected since the 1880's. Rhine conducted tests involving over a million trials. 27 of 33 of his studies produced statistically significant results, including a test with results that had a chance of only 1 in a million.

Some of the most compelling recent evidence for ESP comes from what are called ganzfeld experiments. A ganzfeld experiment is one in which a test for extra-sensory perception is combined with sensory deprivation achieved through methods such as cutting a ping-pong ball in half and taping it over someone's eyes, and having someone wear an earphone transmitting white noise. In these ESP experiments, the expected chance hit rate (matching of a user's selection and a random target) is 25%. But as wikipedia reports here, “In 2010, Lance Storm, Patrizio Tressoldi, and Lorenzo Di Risio analyzed 29 ganzfeld studies from 1997 to 2008. Of the 1,498 trials, 483 produced hits, corresponding to a hit rate of 32.2%.” That success rate of 32.2% is hugely above the expected by-chance success rate of 25%.

But this year there may be new experimental evidence even more compelling than the ganzfeld studies. This year the biologist Rupert Sheldrake published a paper describing experiments involving ESP and telephone, E-mails, and text messages. It is supposedly not uncommon for people to get a phone call from a distant acquaintance, and to say something like, “Funny, I was just thinking of you.” Sheldrake did experiments to try and verify whether there is anything more than just coincidence behind such thoughts. 

 
Sheldrake and Pam Smart tried a phone call test in which participants get a call from one of four different people, and must guess beforehand who the person is. Testing 63 subjects in a total of 570 trials, the average success rate was 40%, hugely above the expected 25% success rate. This 40% success rate had a probability of less than 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000. Four of the subjects who did best were then retested under rigorous videotaped conditions. In 271 trials, the average hit rate was 45%, even more dramatically above the expected success rate of 25%., with a probability of less than 1 in 1,000,000,000,000.

Sheldrake and Pam Smart also did email experiments in which participants get an e-mail from one of four different people, and must guess beforehand who the person is. Testing 50 subjects in a total of 552 trials, the average success rate was 43%, hugely above the expected 25% success rate. This 43% success rate had a probability of less than 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000. Five of the subjects who did best were then retested under filmed  conditions. The average hit rate was 47%, even more dramatically above the expected success rate of 25%.

Sheldrake and Smart also did similar tests with text messaging and ESP, although the results were much less impressive than the very dramatic results mentioned above for phone calls and emails. Overall, these tests provide dramatic evidence for extra-sensory perception.

I can predict what the reaction of certain minds will be to these results: a reaction of absolute denial. What seems to go on in such minds is the following type of thinking:

1. I believe in the theory that human consciousness is a mere by-product of brain activity, nothing special.
   
2. There are many ESP tests that seem to cast grave doubt on such a theory.
   
3. Therefore, such tests must absolutely be bogus or bungled.
   

But there is a more intelligent way to react to such experiments. It would be to think along these lines:

1. I have been believing in the theory that human consciousness is a mere by-product of brain activity, nothing special.
   
2. There are many ESP tests that seem to cast grave doubt on such a theory.
   
3. Therefore, there is a good chance that my theory is wrong.
   

Please don't rebut this post with a statement such as “8 out of 10 scientists don't believe in ESP.” That might be true, but if you investigated further you would find that 8 out of 10 scientists have no detailed familiarity with the experiments which indicate that ESP exists. Your opinion on something carries no weight if you don't know anything about it, regardless if you have a PhD in some other subject that you know a lot about.

Let me conclude by giving a personal recollection that is most highly suggestive of the reality of ESP. I was recently at the Queens Zoo in New York City with my two teenage daughters (we go to the zoo about once a year). We were looking at a feline animal called a puma, which we could see distantly, far behind a plastic barrier. Suddenly (oddly enough) I had a recollection of a zoo visit I had ten years ago, when I saw a gorilla just behind a plastic barrier, at the zoo at Busch Gardens in Florida. About three seconds later (before I said anything), my younger daughter said, “Do you remember that gorilla we saw close-up in Busch Gardens?” I was flabbergasted. It was as if there was telepathy going on. The incident seems all the more amazing when you consider that teenagers live very much in the present or the near future, and virtually never talk about things that happened 10 years ago. There was nothing in our field of view that might have caused both of us to have that recollection at the same time. On that zoo visit we hadn't seen a gorilla, nor had we seen any animal near a plastic barrier.

When we moved to the next zoo exhibit, just for laughs I asked my older daughter whether perchance she also was thinking of that gorilla we saw 10 years ago, before anyone mentioned the gorilla. My jaw dropped when she reported: yes, she also was thinking of that gorilla we saw ten years ago in Busch Gardens, before anyone had said anything about it. So apparently before anyone said anything, we had three out of three people all recalling the same very distant memory – a memory of seeing a gorilla ten years ago. How do you explain such a thing without a hypothesis of something like ESP? The odds of such a coincidence seem less than 1 in a billion.

We have been conditioned to bury such coincidences when they occur. When such things happen, we may visualize a stern, scowling man wearing a white lab coat, a man who says, “Pay no attention to such things – it's just coincidence or chance.” My advice to you is: ignore such a visual. Instead, whenever something happens to you that seems like something that might involve ESP, precognition, or anything paranormal, write it down, in the same notebook or the same text file. Document it carefully, calmly, and objectively. As the years go by, the evidence in that file or notebook may accumulate in a way that causes an alteration of your worldview.

The Parallel Universes Delusion

The recent skyscraper suicide leap of a JP Morgan “parallel universes” enthusiast raises the question: is such a belief a dangerous delusion?

What is called the Everett Many Worlds theory is a theory supposedly based on quantum mechanics. The theory holds that every instant the universe is constantly splitting up into an infinite number of copies of itself, so that every possibility (no matter how unlikely) can be realized. The theory has a name that makes it sound not so unreasonable (with all the planets being discovered, the phrase “many worlds” doesn't sound too farfetched). But the name “many worlds” doesn't describe the nutty idea behind the theory. The theory would be more accurately described as the theory of infinite duplication, because the theory maintains the universe is duplicating itself every second. Or we might also call the theory “the theory of infinite absurdities,” since it imagines that all absurd possibilities (no matter how ridiculous) are constantly being actualized.

There is no evidence whatsoever for this theory, which is endorsed by only a minority of theoretical physicists. The Everett Many Worlds theory has been firmly rejected by physicists such as Adrian Kent, T. P. Singh (who says it has been falsified), and also Casey Blood, who calls it “fatally flawed.” No one has ever observed a parallel universe. We also cannot plausibly imagine such a theory ever being verified. To verify the theory, you would need to travel to some other universe to verify its existence, which is, of course, impossible. Even if you did travel to such a universe, you could never verify the idea that every possibility is occurring in other parallel universes.

It is sometimes claimed that the Everett Many Worlds theory is “supported” or “implied” by quantum mechanics, but that statement is not correct. It is merely correct to say that quantum mechanics is the springboard or diving board from which people leap to the theory of infinite parallel universes, rather like a man jumping from a high Olympic diving board into an empty swimming pool. Because quantum field theory makes the worst prediction in the history of physics (that every cubic meter of a vacuum has more mass-energy than the entire mass-energy in the observable universe), and because quantum mechanics is inconsistent with the well-established theory of general relativity, we are many decades or centuries from being in a position where quantum mechanics can be credibly used as the basis of any vast theory with sweeping consequences, any theory such as the Everett Many Worlds theory.

In order for our universe to split up into other universes, you would need for new matter to be constantly created. Not just a little matter. The Everett Many Worlds theory basically requires that every instant an infinite amount of mass-energy be created – for how else could one universe constantly be splitting up into an infinite number of copies of itself? The problem with that is that it is a known law of nature that mass-energy cannot be created. This law is called the law of the conservation of mass and energy.

What is the proper term to describe an incredibly bizarre belief which is eternally unverifiable, and which violates a known law of nature? The correct term is: delusion. When discussing belief in the Everett Many Worlds theory, the term we should be using is: the parallel universes delusion.

The definition I am using for delusion is the first one I get when doing a Google search for that definition: “An idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument.” The parallel universes theory meets that definition. The theory involves a supremely idiosyncratic idea that is dramatically in conflict with what is “generally accepted as reality,” which is that there is one instance of each of us, not an infinite number of copies of each of us.

Vision disorder reminiscent of parallel universes theory

Now, you might argue: you can't prove that there aren't an infinite number of parallel universes, so the theory isn't a delusion. But an idea can be a delusion even if it can't be proven wrong. If you believe you created the Andromeda galaxy in a previous incarnation as a deity, there's no way to prove that wrong. But such a belief would be an incredibly bizarre unsubstantiated belief which could never be proven. So it would be absolutely correct to call it a delusion.

Is is it fair to use the term delusion in talking about a belief in parallel universes? After all, delusion is a very strong word, which almost implies a kind of psychiatric problem. But I don't think such a word is too strong. To illustrate the point, let us imagine a case of a man James who has been charged with killing a man named John Doe. James undergoes a psychiatric evaluation. Now James is a firm believer in the Everett Many Worlds theory, the idea that every second our universe is splitting up into an infinite number of parallel universes. The interview goes something like this.

Psychiatrist: Good morning. Let's begin the court-ordered psychiatric evaluation. You've been charged with a serious crime, the murder of John Doe. So I have to determine whether you have a firm grip on reality. Now let me ask you: did you kill John Doe?

James: Well, I did, and I didn't.

Psychiatrist: You did, and you didn't?

James: You see, there was one me who did kill John Doe, and there was one me who didn't.

Psychiatrist: Fascinating. So it seems that you have a kind of split personality.

James: No, it's not like that. It's that there's one world in which I killed John Doe, and another world in which I didn't.

Psychiatrist: My goodness, this is an even more fascinating case of pathology. So you think there are two you's?

James: No, no, Doctor, it's not like that.

Psychiatrist: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. So how many you's are there?

James: There are an infinite number of me's.

Psychiatrist: Really? So how many of those you's killed John Doe?

James: Well, an infinite number of me's killed John Doe, and an infinite number of me's did not kill John Doe. Plus there were an infinite number of me's who killed you, and your mother, or any other single person in this city.

Psychiatrist: So are you saying you've killed me an infinite number of times?

James: Yes, there have been an infinite number of me's who killed you, but don't get the wrong idea. There have also been an infinite number of me's who killed some other person, plus also an infinite number of me's who did not kill anyone.

Psychiatrist: Thanks. This interview is over. I think we've established perfectly well now that you have no firm grip on reality.

Now I ask you: would it be fair for this psychiatrist to use the word delusion in discussing the beliefs of James? I think it would be absolutely fair. James suffers from an utterly irrational, gigantically bizarre and totally unverifiable belief for which there is no evidence, a belief that scrambles most of the normal notions of reality, making James sound like some psychiatric inmate. It would be perfectly fair to use the term delusion to refer to that belief. Similarly, it is correct to use the term “the parallel universes delusion” when speaking of the Everett Many Worlds theory, which postulates just what James described in his interview.

Two months ago a 39-year old JP Morgan executive jumped to his death from a high floor of a skyscraper. His girlfriend said that he had an obsession with the idea of parallel universes. Apparently the man was familiar with two other young believers in parallel universes who had killed themselves.

No one should be the least bit surprised when a believer in an infinity of parallel universes commits suicide. When a man holds the belief that all possible scenarios are just as real as observed reality, and that any possible outcome is occurring an infinite number of times, he is apt to think that it makes no difference what he does, and that it makes no difference whether he lives. A belief in an infinity of parallel universes is a poisonous prescription for complete moral indifference, and suicide is a very possible side effect of that prescription.

All I can say is: irrational beliefs lead to irrational conduct, and a belief in an infinity of parallel universes is an utterly irrational belief. Keep your grip on reality, and avoid this crackpot misbegotten theory like the plague. Do not flatter yourself by vainly imagining that there are an infinite number of you's scattered across parallel universes. You are the only you. 

Postscript: See this recent post by physicist Lubos Moti Pilsen, who dismisses the Everett Many Worlds theory as pseudoscience that is "fundamentally wrong."  Pilsen makes many other good points I didn't make in this post. 

Post-postscript: See here to see a quote by a physicist Theo Nieuwenhuizen on the Everett Many Worlds theory: 

But one thing is clear already: the many worlds idea about quantum mechanics is a mistaken, nonsensical issue. I spent 15 years on studying what goes on in quantum measurements, the only point of contact between the quantum framework and the reality of tests in detectors. We have good results and a good picture of what goes on. What is very clear: the many worlds idea comes in nowhere and it has nothings to to with the whole subject. It is a lot of talking about a misconceived structure of the theory.