Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Overcoming Bias Commenter's avatar

I recommend reading, for example, Wallace's 2003 paper Everettian Rationality: defending Deutsch's approach to probability in the Everett interpretation.

Since the standard probability rule can be derived using fairly innocuous (imo) assumptions, if you believe in a uniform probability rule (which will disagree in principle even if it does work out to close to the same in practice), you must either find these arguments faulty or disagree with an assumption.

The mangled worlds idea has the same problem that the Copenhagen interpretation does: it postulates an additional physical process that is not needed to explain observations.

Expand full comment
Overcoming Bias Commenter's avatar

What alternate account are they defending?

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts