All concepts, including probabilities, are tools for making better predictions of the anticipated experiences. One can discuss whether a single universe, a Tegmark multiverse, MWI or something else is a more convenient and consistent way of describing “reality”, but that has no bearing on “what probability really means” or “what electromagnetic field really means” or “what consciousness really means”. All these are concepts (models) that are useful within their domain of applicability, and not very much outside of it. There is no one universal concept that is always useful in every case.
Definitely, I don’t think I said anything to the contrary. We are embedded agents in most realist models of where observations come from, so the predictions include those of our own actions, at all levels. Scott Alexander’s discussions of the brain modeled as an anticipated error minimizer go into some details there.
All concepts, including probabilities, are tools for making better predictions of the anticipated experiences. One can discuss whether a single universe, a Tegmark multiverse, MWI or something else is a more convenient and consistent way of describing “reality”, but that has no bearing on “what probability really means” or “what electromagnetic field really means” or “what consciousness really means”. All these are concepts (models) that are useful within their domain of applicability, and not very much outside of it. There is no one universal concept that is always useful in every case.
Nobody does nothing but passively make predictions. Agents also change things. That’s why they are called “agents”, not “patients”.
Definitely, I don’t think I said anything to the contrary. We are embedded agents in most realist models of where observations come from, so the predictions include those of our own actions, at all levels. Scott Alexander’s discussions of the brain modeled as an anticipated error minimizer go into some details there.