My problem with parallel universes

So you might have heard of the theory which states that every decision made (by humans? By every sentient being in existence? By anything capable of "deciding"?) creates a coexisting universe where everything is the same as the pre-decision universe but includes the consequences of an alternate choice - the current universe "splits" to make countless the alternates. That's a lot of universes. You supposedly made another one by choosing to read this. ...I guess.

If you're already familiar with this idea, then you're aware that these alternate universes are often referred to as "parallel universes" and what I take issue with is, well, that name.

I point out that the word "parallel" is one very specific, geometrical, unambiguous way to describe linear things that are headed in the exact same direction; that if they were to extend infinitely (a line), they would never intersect. Thus, visualizing the multiverse as containing some sorts of planes (geometrical planes) running side by side to infinity and beyond, the assumption is that they all started from one starting universe which did not split until the first sentient being made the first decision of time. (unless time never started, so they go from infinity to more infinity?)

Whether or not you believe this, what I want to know is how these universes could possibly be parallel... If they split from a single point to begin with. Think about it, parallel lines may never intersect yet the birth point of each alternate universe is an intersection. Basic geometry.

Figure A

Figure B

SURE, maybe the title wasn't meant to be taken literally, but a title like "parallel universe" doesn't scream "metaphor" to me. And perhaps I shouldn't be applying space-and-time-like properties to a theoretical place that is, by definition, outside the boundaries of time and space. But still, they're called "parallel"...
Those with out a brain should not continue on reading.

So to clarify, what I'm talking about is either figure A or figure B. Figure A would seem more accurate, considering we have no reason to assume one option of the decision is more important than another. But it raises questions such as whether the universe heading into the Y actually ends at the split, or if it continues on in the left or right universe meaning the original universe actually has, well, some sort of bend. Maybe the original simply cuts in half at the point, but that raises the question of half of a universe (which may be perfectly possible since arithmetically one-half of infinity is still infinity) or different sized universes. So from now on, we'll go with Figure B where the universe continues to go straight and stems off in a sort of branch (like a tree) at the decision points. To cover the question of why one option gets to be the one going straight rather than the other, we'll speak under the pretense that the "straight" decision result (if you will) is not more important than the decision result that seems to stray off in another direction, but rather, that first decision result happens to be the one that led you and I to the parallel universe we are living in right now (and, by extension, that same decision result would appear to stray away from the straight line from the perspective of those in a parallel universe other than our own). But then if every parallel universe sees their own path of arrival as the straight line, then one must wonder what these lines look like from a neutral, universe-independent perspective. Probably just some huge ball of wibbly-wobbly timey wimey beyond our human comprehension. But that's a story for another day.

If you haven't already noticed, the parallel universe concept kind of violently exterminates any point of morality at all, among other things. What's the point of right and wrong if we're inevitably going to choose...both? With such massive inherent issues, why would I spend so much time picking on the name? You know what they say about names. If all the parallel universes were different from the start, they could easily be parallel. But in this theory it contradicts the very core: What if you drove up to a fork in the road and both the left and right directions were... "parallel?" assuming the parallel lines are headed in the direction that is a compromise of their originals, these roads would be headed straight, as in, the precise same direction you came from - meaning they would have to occupy the same spot.

Figure C

So then, are these parallel universes not parallel, but inside each other? Then which one is inside which? Or are they evenly dissolved both ways? Wouldn't that cause them to lose their identity? Maybe the resulting merged, ambiguous universe be one big indecisive mess... But back to parallel universes that are actually parallel: one solution to the fork in the road is if the two directions started in their own directions but then immediately turned, to be parallel from then on? (see figure C) This would not successfully fit the definition of parallel, but let's say the "parallel universes" isn't so strict, for this one.

Now of course every decision has much more than two possible outcomes, so let's fill in a few more to figure C at the starting universe - and what do we have?

So for the inventor of parallel universes - are you saying the whole multiverse is shaped like a menorah?