Have you noticed any confusion?

It just seems almost too good to be true that I now get what plenty of genius quantum physicists still can't.

Hmm, "too good to be true"... Does this suggest anything?

In physics, you can get absolutely clear-cut issues. Not in the sense that the issues are trivial to explain. But if you try to apply Bayes to healthcare, or economics, you may not be able to formally lay out what is the simplest hypothesis, or what the evidence supports.

So why bother with an example where Bayes works the worst and is most confusing? [EDIT: What I mean is that the scientific principle works so much better in physics compared to other fields mentioned, Bayes clearly is not essential there]

Bayes-Goggles on: The simplest quantum equations that cover all known evidence don't have a special exception for human-sized masses. There isn't even any reason to ask that particular question. Next!

This is an actual testable prediction. Suppose such an exception is found experimentally (for example, self-decoherence due to gravitational time dilation, as proposed by Penrose, limiting the quantum effects to a few micrograms or so). Would you expect EY to retract his Bayesian-simplest model in this case, or "adjust" it to match the new data? Honestly, what do you think is likely to happen?

Okay, Bayes-Goggles back on. Are you really going to believe that large parts of the wavefunction disappear when you can no longer see them? As a result of the only non-linear non-unitary non-differentiable non-CPT-symmetric acausal faster-than-light informally-specified phenomenon in all of physics? Just because, by sheer historical contingency, the stupid version of the theory was proposed first?

Have you noticed that this is a straw-Copenhagen, and not the real thing?