I am a little curious here. I think the QM version is often called the “many worlds interpretation”, is that correct? That would essentially be based on Hugh Everett’s idea.
The thing that seemed a bit disturbing to me on the many worlds interpretation is that it could mean that in one world I am an ax murder and another one I am a saint. Whereas it may not be offensive to reason, because it tries to get around the indeterminism of QM, it tries to introduce an absolute determinism where it seems like I am not really the author of the choices I make.
I find that a little disturbing that element of choice is somewhat removed from me. The reason that a conscious entity is considered culpable for a crime is that such an agent is presumed to have the ability to decide right from wrong. If a robot kills someone, we would not say the robot committed a crime, we would say that the robot is defective. There could be an instance where the robot was intentionally programmed to do a murder, but the robot would not be held accountable as an accomplice in the sin. This is also why I am not so keen about proposals that consciousness comes from QM because that means my decisions are based on randomness within some tolerance. The mind seems very empirical because things like brain damage or neurodegenerative diseases do change the mind and its behavior, so it is difficult to be a dualist, but anyway, that is my problem.
I can make the unscientific proposal that accepting Jesus as our savior is truly salvation because it removes that ambiguity of my character. In this way, I myself trudging in the ax-murdering-thread universe is somehow redirected and moves away from sin and I myself trudging in the saint-thread universe am kept treading on that path of righteous. I myself in the intermediates of those extremes is moving in a better direction. There is no real science in this, but if I look at it this way, I can say that it doesn’t impinge on Christianity, but I am not sure how you reached the view that the many-worlds-model doesn’t conflict necessarily with our faith.
Anyway, as a scientist, I am obligated to accept what is true.
by Grace we proceed.