The law of conservation of energy is when thing "A" exists now and thing "A" exists in the future. The existence of the Universe in the future is not considered a violation of the law of conservation of energy if there is one future. Why then should the existence of the Universe be considered a violation of the law of conservation of energy if it exists in two futures? The idea that the "new" timeline did not exist before, and then it appeared, is a subjective illusion (like the word "new" used above). There is simply timelessness and a Universe with two futures. The traveler creates one of them subjectively, but objectively both have always existed. The same "paradox of free will" as in the case of the "vote of the average voter". If you are inclined to interpret the Universe without branches as "there is no free will", then you can interpret the Universe with branches in the same way.
The law of conservation of energy is when thing "A" exists now and thing "A" exists in the future. The existence of the Universe in the future is not considered a violation of the law of conservation of energy if there is one future. Why then should the existence of the Universe be considered a violation of the law of conservation of energy if it exists in two futures? The idea that the "new" timeline did not exist before, and then it appeared, is a subjective illusion (like the word "new" used above). There is simply timelessness and a Universe with two futures. The traveler creates one of them subjectively, but objectively both have always existed. The same "paradox of free will" as in the case of the "vote of the average voter". If you are inclined to interpret the Universe without branches as "there is no free will", then you can interpret the Universe with branches in the same way.