I’m still not entirely clear what you mean by “MWI proves too much”.
If I try to translate this into simpler terms, I get something like: MWI only matches our observations if we apply the Born rule, but it doesn’t motivate the Born rule. So there are many sets of observations that would be compatible with MWI, which means P(data | MWI) is low and that in turn means we can’t update very much on P(MWI | data).
Is that approximately what you’re getting at?
(That would be a nonstandard usage of the phrase, especially given that you linked to the wikipedia article when using it. But it kind of fits the name, and I can’t think of a way for the standard usage to fit.)
It seems like we are talking about something similar. If you interpret MWI as “anything can happen with some probability, and, given that we are here observing it, the posterior probability is obviously high enough”, then you can use it to explain anything. I agree that my usage was not quite standard, but it fits somewhat, because you can use MWI to justify any conclusion, including an absurd one.
I’m still not entirely clear what you mean by “MWI proves too much”.
If I try to translate this into simpler terms, I get something like: MWI only matches our observations if we apply the Born rule, but it doesn’t motivate the Born rule. So there are many sets of observations that would be compatible with MWI, which means P(data | MWI) is low and that in turn means we can’t update very much on P(MWI | data).
Is that approximately what you’re getting at?
(That would be a nonstandard usage of the phrase, especially given that you linked to the wikipedia article when using it. But it kind of fits the name, and I can’t think of a way for the standard usage to fit.)
It seems like we are talking about something similar. If you interpret MWI as “anything can happen with some probability, and, given that we are here observing it, the posterior probability is obviously high enough”, then you can use it to explain anything. I agree that my usage was not quite standard, but it fits somewhat, because you can use MWI to justify any conclusion, including an absurd one.