Is the “percent of everett branches” a literal question, or just a clever way of saying “prior probability at the moment of gunfire”? Taken literally, there’s an infinitesimal fraction of branches that contain humans, a tiny fraction of those contain Trump, a trivial slice of THOSE have him in the public eye enough to get shot at, only a few of which have that event and that shooter present, etc...
It’s a lot like saying “what’re the chances that this week’s lottery would be EXACTLY 11,23,44,46, 51, 60”? It depends on when you ask the question, and what your reference set is. The reference set of everett branches is near-infinite (I haven’t seen a formal treatment arguing that it’s truly infinite, nor what kind of infinity), so any given set of similar-in-some-ways branches is infinitesimal. At a human probability level, the chances that Trump died are now 0 (or at least near-zero; you can never be truly certain).
Is the “percent of everett branches” a literal question, or just a clever way of saying “prior probability at the moment of gunfire”? Taken literally, there’s an infinitesimal fraction of branches that contain humans, a tiny fraction of those contain Trump, a trivial slice of THOSE have him in the public eye enough to get shot at, only a few of which have that event and that shooter present, etc...
It’s a lot like saying “what’re the chances that this week’s lottery would be EXACTLY 11,23,44,46, 51, 60”? It depends on when you ask the question, and what your reference set is. The reference set of everett branches is near-infinite (I haven’t seen a formal treatment arguing that it’s truly infinite, nor what kind of infinity), so any given set of similar-in-some-ways branches is infinitesimal. At a human probability level, the chances that Trump died are now 0 (or at least near-zero; you can never be truly certain).