Be careful with ideas of what “most LWers” or “the LessWrong community” believes. There’s a LOT written here, some of which is useful, some interesting, and some kind of pointless. The fact that something gets explored and not specifically refuted may only mean that it’s fun to explore, and the scepics don’t find it worth the effort to engage.
I’m pretty agnostic on MWI. Not because I have strong counterarguments, but because it’s hard to know what “true” or “real” even means outside my light cone. Fortunately, it doesn’t matter. Bayesean probability is about prediction or knowledge of future experiences, not about reality (whatever that is).
Be careful with ideas of what “most LWers” or “the LessWrong community” believes. There’s a LOT written here, some of which is useful, some interesting, and some kind of pointless. The fact that something gets explored and not specifically refuted may only mean that it’s fun to explore, and the scepics don’t find it worth the effort to engage.
I’m pretty agnostic on MWI. Not because I have strong counterarguments, but because it’s hard to know what “true” or “real” even means outside my light cone. Fortunately, it doesn’t matter. Bayesean probability is about prediction or knowledge of future experiences, not about reality (whatever that is).
One might be so bold as to add that people outside the LW community could possibly have something worthwhile to say.
I mean, sure, but I’m not sure how that helps with this question.
The question of what probability really means? Why shouldn’t someone who studies it be able to help?
Oh! yeah, would be helpful to include references to outside sources, huh? Guess that advice goes for both of us. I’m too lazy, why don’t you go ahead?