Why some 'specialness' any more than previously shown? I'm just asking isn't it also possible that said observer(s) forces a far greater resolve than at the hitherto 'observable' quantum level? Hence, its not about 'what I want', its just a query about how 'big' it might all go!.. how deep is the rabbit hole? Seems to me you know something about the Copenhagen interpretation and so refuse to consider anything beyond it.

Sounds like a lot of clones! Still, perception is subjective and if each of our worlds is just that, our own (as per our own perceptions, or even those of our 'clones'!) then doesn't the question, regarding each world, remain? You're talking with an assumption that all these worlds are solid, somehow becoming of themselves, and so are objective. I was talking, asking, about the observers [very subjective] input into all this. Remember, that proven 'theory' regarding observation at the quantum level?

I used to think that the very possibility of there being NO 'afterlife', which I believe to most people - including myself when younger - who do either believe or at least think that they can begin to imagine such, actually means a 'still cognizant, still somehow very 'human', existence into forever, was about the scariest thing I could imagine!! This may have much to do with the severe (grand-mal) seizures I suffered every few months as an adoloscent, and that that timeless, empty, space into which I'd apparently slipped each time - totally devoid of any apparent consciousness! - and only been [made] aware of afterwards (for usually about fifteen minutes, as I'd learn, yet to me as a totally indeterminable void of timeless nothingness!), always, ALWAYS, brought this teenage boy to frightened-beyond-frightened disoriented weeping at the total incomprehension of what might.. or might not.. have just happened!! Over time, I now see that had death itself come during one of those 'episodes', as well it might (I hit my head extremely hard more than once, even fractured my skull one time!) that if that complete and utter nothingness is what was to be for me thereafter, though I'd have no awareness even of that of course, then it wouldn't really have mattered, would it? Not to me, that is. And if our world(s) are, as they now more and more seem, are nought but totally subjective essentially purely individual as per our own perceptions and perceived experiences, feelings, and emotions, then such 'endings', I have come to believe, are always at once both world and universe destroying, that of our own perceptions, including past, present and future possibilities of such, and yet no more than a return to 'source' passing of one thing, life as we generally think it, to another, the absolute [devoid of time] NOTHINGNESS ABSOLUTE from which we came forth in the first place! I had these latter notions confounded when I attended a much-loved Uncle's funeral in my hometown,in England, in 1998. Whilst such a special man, great character and lover of life, had left seemingly such a gaping hole in my own and many others lives, our very worlds - which I now view as often overlapping 'spheres' both in terms of time and place! - I looked upon his coffin, his casket, at the front there, and imagined just the empty, yet still greatly recognisable, 'shell' of that person we all loved. For him, I realised, or would come to realise, there had effectively been an 'implosion' of a whole world. Universe, even. One, his, which was never to come again. Not here, leastways, and in all likelyhood, never and nowhere at all again. A lightbulb ever broken or simply disconnected from its power-source, maybe, that power-source also now evidently extinguished for eternity. So, is this just a too sad or negative a way to 'face' your own one-day imminent death? Or does it make it seem too scary? I no longer think so. Energy, at least, does not die, and so we go on.. just probably not in that 'classical' "Hereafter, here I come!" way we egotistical humans always assume our own existence(s) will somehow remain. In truth, I also believe that all these worlds, wherever on the 'timeline' they occurred, occur, or will occur, and regardless of the 'Many Worlds' hypothesis - that is, variations of such (as per all the ongoing connotations of 'possibilities') - whilst one day undeniably ending for each of us within our own space-and time perception of the 'Here and Now', nonetheless still exist, and will continue to do so, certainly for me in terms of what could perhaps be termed the 'Then and There Hypothesis'. Maybe all this, the reliving and/ or observation of such is what awaits us. Or maybe we just go 'Lights Out' and sleep dreamlessly forever. I'll take what comes. THIS i can live, and face my death, with.

Bringing children into this world as per a conscious progation of the species does not seem to me to be the reason ANYONE wants to have, or indeed has, children of their own, these days. This school of thought would be more in line with the notion of an altruistic serving of the needs of the human race, leastways a human race within the overall race. Women fawn over babies. They want one. I see more a correlation with the essentially novel desire to have a puppy or kitten abouth the house, than, say, any wish to help bring about a new generation of family members. No-one says "Aww.. look at this beautiful baby, I can just imagine having my own child, children, and seeing it, them, through into adulthood.' No, the desire generally stops at the idea of a 'sweet' baby (even though we all obviously KNOW what follows!).Its only later that people, parents, have to wake up, even grow up, to the fact that baby won't be baby for very long!! Of course, we all love 'our own' and will continue to do so, but I guess my point, personal feeling, is that the 'philosophy' of bringing a child into the world, isn't much of a philosophy at all. Not at the outset, leastways. Of course, those using 'manuals', whichever 'bible', in their pursuit of having children, generally seem to have a totally different agenda. And, yes it is an agenda, a doctrine even, to follow some 'design for life' which someone else, another human being, once wrote as per their own notions, desires, and, usually, intention to control as many others as possible! This is also so subjective a reason to have offspring as to become OBJECTIVELY cold, I would go as far as to claim. It is true that I have no children of my own, but until the last ten years, maybe always thought I may, but I did live as 'father' of a family of three girls (along with Mother and me!) some years ago, loved and now miss those years greatly, but also understand that in any perceivable 'bigger scheme of things' I have now missed the boat in regards to my own true paternal inclinations! Still, I do 'get' it, whats going on, I think, and so believe that although the result of a wish for children will always lead to a simple ongoing 'propagation' scenario, how people get there is a little more basic than any understanding of what parenthood and 'passing on genes into future generations' truly and wholly entails. So, a philosophy [behind bringing a child to this world]? No, I don't really see, in general, such a process of greater thought which could be termed as such, in this case.