To be precise, I think that MWI is probably true in our reality, but I think that probability is subjective and unrelated to whether MWI is true or false.
Like, if the MWI is true, then for a hypothetical omniscient and perfectly calibrated being probabilities would be equal to frequencies of Everett branches. But if e.g. Copenhagen interpretation is true, then for the same being, probabilities would be equal to… uhm, probabilities in the collapse. And if we lived in the Conway’s Game of Life, then I guess the hypothetical omniscient being could predict everything with 100% certainty, so the concept of probability would not make sense for them, but it would still make sense for beings with imperfect knowledge.
In other words, probability is in the mind, but hypothetically speaking if your mind is god-like then your probability reflects something in the territory (because what else it could be?).
In other words, probability is in the mind, but hypothetically speaking if your mind is god-like then your probability reflects something in the territory (because what else it could be
Why not summarise that as “in the mind and in the territory”.
A better summary is “in the mind and maybe parts of the territory”. It definitely exists in the mind. We don’t know how to test when and whether it’s in the territory.
To be precise, I think that MWI is probably true in our reality, but I think that probability is subjective and unrelated to whether MWI is true or false.
Like, if the MWI is true, then for a hypothetical omniscient and perfectly calibrated being probabilities would be equal to frequencies of Everett branches. But if e.g. Copenhagen interpretation is true, then for the same being, probabilities would be equal to… uhm, probabilities in the collapse. And if we lived in the Conway’s Game of Life, then I guess the hypothetical omniscient being could predict everything with 100% certainty, so the concept of probability would not make sense for them, but it would still make sense for beings with imperfect knowledge.
In other words, probability is in the mind, but hypothetically speaking if your mind is god-like then your probability reflects something in the territory (because what else it could be?).
I don’t think we have a substantial disagreement.
Why not summarise that as “in the mind and in the territory”.
A better summary is “in the mind and maybe parts of the territory”. It definitely exists in the mind. We don’t know how to test when and whether it’s in the territory.
In the mind that is trying to reflect the territory.