Your process seems to privilege your current model over new models with identical predictions, which leads to belief hysteresis. Your point has also been fully answered in his sequence, so either you didn't read it, forgot, or you're deliberately strawmanning. And I wouldn't sau that decoherence doesn't have interpretational baggage, did you read the article you linked? Because it says under the interpretation section that copenhagen didn't use decoherence and it's at the core of mwi. And you're lamenting Eliezer's loss of rationality based on what, again?