If the dilemma is only taking place in a small portion of the branches, the other branches will survive regardless of the choice, which breaks the argument about many-worlds total extinction risk.
I assumed that, even if most branches don’t have the machine, the machine’s influence reaches to all branches, so that it can destroy all of them along with ours.
The thought experiment is about eliciting some of the normative content of truth vs. falsity of MWI, in terms that don’t assume MWI. The meaning of “destroy all MWI branches” is given in terms of MWI, so this clause wouldn’t respect the motivation of the thought experiment.
The thought experiment is about eliciting some of the normative content of truth vs. falsity of MWI, in terms that don’t assume MWI.
That is not my reading. Consider this part:
If you treat quantum measure squared exactly as probability, then you shouldn’t see any reason to replace the trigger. But if you believed in many worlds quantum mechanics (or think that MWI is possibly correct with non-zero probability), you might be tempted to accept the deal—after all, everyone will survive in one branch.
The post then goes on to argue that there is a dilemma here, that an apparently plausible case can be made for either choice, assuming that MWI is true.
I take the post to be saying, “Here’s an interesting dilemma. Well, it’s only interesting if there’s a possibility that MWI is true. That is, if you know that MWI is false, then the answer is obvious. But, granting the possibility of MWI for the sake of argument, what would you do?”
If the dilemma is only taking place in a small portion of the branches, the other branches will survive regardless of the choice, which breaks the argument about many-worlds total extinction risk.
I assumed that, even if most branches don’t have the machine, the machine’s influence reaches to all branches, so that it can destroy all of them along with ours.
The thought experiment is about eliciting some of the normative content of truth vs. falsity of MWI, in terms that don’t assume MWI. The meaning of “destroy all MWI branches” is given in terms of MWI, so this clause wouldn’t respect the motivation of the thought experiment.
That is not my reading. Consider this part:
The post then goes on to argue that there is a dilemma here, that an apparently plausible case can be made for either choice, assuming that MWI is true.
I take the post to be saying, “Here’s an interesting dilemma. Well, it’s only interesting if there’s a possibility that MWI is true. That is, if you know that MWI is false, then the answer is obvious. But, granting the possibility of MWI for the sake of argument, what would you do?”