Whether or not quantum randomness drives the course of the economy it's still a really good idea to stop conflating subjective probability and the corresponding notion of possible worlds with quantum/inflationary/whatever many world theories. Rolf's comment doesn't actually do this: I read him as speaking entirely about the anthropic issue. Eliezer, on the other hand, totally is conflating them in the original post.

I understand that there are reasons to think anthropic issues play an essential role in the assignment of subjective probabilities, especially at a decision theoretic level. But given a) subjective uncertainty over whether or not many-worlds is correct, b) our ignorance of how the Born probability rule figures into the relationship and c) the way anthropics skews anticipated experiences I am really suspicious that anyone here is able to answer the question:

"Do you think Everett branches with 4% or 1% RGDP growth have a better chance of getting FAI before UFAI"?

People are actually answering

"Do you think possible worlds with 4% or 1% RGDP growth have a better chance of getting FAI before UFAI"?

which is not obviously the same thing.