Thereâs either hidden variables or inherent randomness, because thereâs nothing under the hood to determine this or that result for a certain quantum statistics, the probability is known, but what results an individual experiment will yield is uncertain.

If we wish to posit that itâs kamma which influences somehow the result of individual events, then itâs hidden variables.

Of course all of the above is assuming no many worlds splitting. Many worlds interpretation is weird, but letâs explore if it is compatible with the notion that kamma is the one which decides what happens in an individual quantum experiment.

Before splitting, the world is identical, same kamma and everything. Letâs imagine a quantum experiment has 2 results, and say they amplify via the classical realm leading to good fortune for the person on one end and bad fortune on another. For example, linking a quantum random number generator to buying a lottery. Thereâs a slim chance to get the right number for the lottery, but we leave it up to the quantum random number generator.

Say the odds of winning is 1 in a million. So the many worlds splitting splits from this one world to at least a million different worlds, with only 1 in a million of those where the result is that the person wins the lottery based on buying the number from a quantum random number generator.

Kammic wise, how can we explain this?

Same kamma before splitting, why after splitting, only one world out of a million that person wins the lottery and the other worlds he didnât. If kamma is the same, shouldnât it operate to give the same outcome?

Naive attempt one failed to use kamma as a way to determine individual results using many worlds interpretation.

Ok letâs try to integrate kamma in a more creative manner. We can just retroactively say that, the world in which the person wins the lottery, the kamma for being generous in the past is used up for that world, and the other worlds, the kamma doesnât have the conditions to mature. So kamma becomes more of an accounting tool. If that person keeps on buying lottery, maybe thereâs less chance for the person who already won to win again.

Except that this type of thinking is mixing in one world probability thinking with many worlds interpretation. In many worlds, anything with non-zero chance will happen in one of the worlds. Thus, there will be a world in which the person wins lottery every single time. Although itâs just one world out of many other splits, thereâs still that world. Say if the kammic bank account of good kamma for that person runs out, would then the person who keeps on winning the lottery from that point onwards cannot win at all? Would then kamma changes the probability of the quantum result to purposely exclude the winning lottery number for that person?

This could be an interesting experiment to conduct as this is an actual prediction that something would be different for many world interpretation if kamma is mixed in the picture. Should we somehow are able to have access to many worlds to do observation of them. Of course, thereâs basically no way this experiment could be done. What we can do in the one world we are subjectively stuck in is to see that the laws of probability is still working and even if the person in the next trillion times doesnât win the lottery, one cannot thereby conclude that thereâs no chance at all to winning it. Probability being what it is is very hard to test for.

Maybe you have another way to integrate kamma with many worlds that I didnât cover yet?