When you say “outcome” do you mean “every outcome of quantum processes”, or do you mean “every event”? Do you mean “every possible result of physical processes” or do you mean “every configuration regardless of physical antecedents”?
The latter, since there are no Garden of Eden patterns in physics. (I’m not sure how the Big Bang fits in.)
As a specific example, is there a world where one human was born of a virgin, performed miraculous healings, prophesied his own death and resurrection, rose from the dead after being buried in a tomb for three days and three nights, was seen by 500 people, and ascended some 40 days thereafter—and do you attribute the existence of this world entirely to quantum decoherences splitting the worlds (i.e. if you believed in God you’d have to answer ‘no’)?
There is such a world, with unfathomably tiny measure (and a tiny portion of your and my measure is in that world*). Or, rather, there is an ensemble of such worlds, that came into being in different ways. I suspect the overwhelmingly vast majority (by measure) involve local “gods”, but a small portion do arise through pure coincidence.
*If you consider “William Tanksley” to refer to “the set of all processes implementing William Tanksley’s conscious experience”, as I do.
The latter, since there are no Garden of Eden patterns in physics. (I’m not sure how the Big Bang fits in.)
There is such a world, with unfathomably tiny measure (and a tiny portion of your and my measure is in that world*). Or, rather, there is an ensemble of such worlds, that came into being in different ways. I suspect the overwhelmingly vast majority (by measure) involve local “gods”, but a small portion do arise through pure coincidence.
*If you consider “William Tanksley” to refer to “the set of all processes implementing William Tanksley’s conscious experience”, as I do.