In my previous letter, “Pathways for personal growth,” published by the Daily on Oct. 5, I mentioned some of the theories that rationalize and, furthermore, enhance the possibilities of alternative existences. One could add to those the theory of parallel universes by 19th century American psychologist William James, the multiple worlds interpretation by American quantum physicist Hugh Everett and many others.

But instead of presenting all these theories now, which all revolve around the theme of alternative existences, I rather contemplate: What is the point of delving into such philosophical winds and twirls? After all, if it doesn’t affect one’s everyday dealings, one better invests his limited life in something more purposeful.

In short, given the rational support these arguments provide for the notion of alternative existences, what implications would, or should, the rebirth of such a possibility, generally, have on human decision-making?

I am quite clear that there is no undisputed evidence supporting either outcomes of the simulation hypothesis or its sister theories, and the existence of an alternative universe — life, existence, you name it — is neither proven nor disproved. Should the outcome be negative, its effect on one’s life is neutral — nothing to change — but should the outcome turn positive, and should the alternative existence be associated in some manner with our current one, wouldn’t that warrant a complete overhaul of our thoughts and perspectives on all matters?

Depending on how smart or longsighted a human individual is, he or she usually makes decisions based on their total valued outcome in the next moment, hour, day, year or decade.

The further downstream we calculate, the better decision-making machines we are.

 But I would assume that, for the majority of the human population, such long vision tends to naturally constrict itself to the space-time bounds of our current existence, with little or no consideration to what such arguments give way to; i.e., alternative existences.

If the two hypotheses mentioned do turn positive, that is an alternative universe — 1st hypothesis — with some or all of its conditions governed by conditions of the current universe — 2nd hypothesis — couldn’t our apathetic stance toward that possibility hold negative prospects, ones that may very well be more negative then all future dangers humanity is currently preoccupied with? It is a situation analogous to approaching a dark room when we don’t know what it holds. Perhaps something good, perhaps something bad or perhaps nothing.

Again, I do understand it is just a hypothesis, just another open possibility; but so are many of the risks we take offense to. Isn’t the sheer possibility, plus the significant probability, plus the potential magnitudes of the consequences, all substantiate a revision of the question: What are humanity’s greatest goals and threats?

Ahmed AlNomany is an ISU alumnus working in Saudi Arabia