= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jack comments on A note on the description complexity of physical theories - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (177)
No. You're comparing the likelihood of 2 hypothesis. The observation that you survived 1000 good suicide attempts is much more likely under MWI than under Copenhagen. Then you flip it around using Bayes' rule, and believe in MWI.
But other Bayesians around you should not agree with you. This is a case where Bayesians should agree to disagree.
First, not to be nit-picky but MWI != QI. Second, if your suicide attempts are well documented the branch in which you survived would be populated by Bayesians who agreed with you, no?
The Bayesians wouldn't agree with you, because the observation that you survived all those suicide attempts is, to them, equally likely under MWI or Copenhagen.