I find it highly unlikely that a superintelligence would care to create a medieval simulation with tons of suffering

EHeller: what if the decision-theoretic approach by Wallace et al. turns out to work? Would you consider MWI "heavily" favoured then?

Because most determinists aren't everettians? Quite simple

So it's enough to establish a quasi-classical preferred basis, but you still have the Born Rule problem? But one is solved ?

I'm not sure how I am going to cite that, there has never been conducted a gigantic poll on this matter, but the fact that the leading "experts" in the field who are the only ones doing work on Everett says that it's less than 10% (Deutsch's new book Beginning of infinity) should be revealing enough.

As for branching and divergence, Alastair Wilson and Simon Saunders disagrees: http://alastairwilson.org/

Dude you are looking at numbers through some 9/11 Truther eyes, you definitely got a long way to go if you plan on travelling the world "working towards life extension". It's great that you are donating money to these funds, but please don't use your story as a "The SAI might be God" thingy. It will only make people look at transhumanism as a religion (like plenty already do).

Congratulations

You say there are objective facts, yet you claim it depends on ones perspective...this is contradictory. Have you read any of Wilson's papers? Or Saunders, Lawhead, Ismael etc.? All have written papers clearly indicating the OBJECTIVE difference.

So you see no objective facts about mwi? non-overlap vs overlap is nonsense in your opinion?

Sure I can accept that I might have overestimated how well you should've been able to interpret my post.

Solipsism vs Realism is indeed a metaphor. If you are saying what I think you are saying, then it is quite equivalent.

I do not think that your example of a diagonal line is the same as overlap vs non-overlap at all. In overlap vs non-overlap the ontological differences matter. In a overlapping world, if you are shot, you are guaranteed to survive in another branch, so QI has to be true. In non-overlap, if you get shot, you just die. There is no consciousness that continue on in another branch that it was never connected to...

Also it makes away with the incoherence problem, which is HUGE if you are in the "Born Rule can be derived from decision-theoretic camp".

It is metaphysics, I've already said this in the first post. There is no experiment that can ever distinguish either, just like no experiment can ever tell us if solipsism or realism is true. But obviously (assuming MWI is right) one of them are, only one, not both.

I think 5 of those papers are directly about non-overlap vs overlap, and I can't remember which makes the point best right now, so read any of them you'd like. Or you can read Simon Saunders paper which was in a chapter of the Many Worlds? 2010 book here: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lina0174/chance.pdf