Decision Theory is a Red Herring for the Many Worlds Interpretation Jacques Mallah’s thorough rebutle of the approach by Wallace et al.
This guy has me at the title. To be honest I’d be satisfied with it even if the contents consisted of “No, realy, wtf are these guys smoking? They have this all backwards!”
Indeed.
I do think Mitchell Porter (and some of these authors) are right in that you need frequency of worlds.
It is very hard to see how you could make sense of probabilities without them.
It’s been 50 years trying to solve this problem without any succes, I think that speaks volumes.
This guy has me at the title. To be honest I’d be satisfied with it even if the contents consisted of “No, realy, wtf are these guys smoking? They have this all backwards!”
Indeed. I do think Mitchell Porter (and some of these authors) are right in that you need frequency of worlds. It is very hard to see how you could make sense of probabilities without them. It’s been 50 years trying to solve this problem without any succes, I think that speaks volumes.