I think that expecting to observe things according to branch counting instead of Born probabilities is a valid choice. Anything bad happens if you do it only of you already care about Born measure.
But if the question is "how do you use observations to determine what's real" than - indirectly by using observations to figure out that QM is true? Not sure if even this makes sense without some preference for high measure, but maybe it is. Maybe by only excluding possibility of your branch not existing, once your observe it? And valuing the measure of you indirectly knowing about realness of everything is not incoherent too ¯\(ツ)/¯. I more in "advocating for people to figure it out in more detail" stage, than having any answers^^.
Still don't buy this "realityfluid" business. Certainly not in the "Born measure is measure of realness" sense. It's not necessary to conclude that some number is realness just because otherwise your epistemology doesn't work so good - it's not a law, that you must find surprising finding yourself in a branch with high measure, when all branches are equally real. Them all being equally real doesn't contradict observations, it's just means the policy of expecting stuff to happen according to Born probabilities gives you high Born measure of knowing about Born measure, not real knowledge about reality.
Ok, whatever, let it be rogue asteroids - why deflecting them is not fanatical? How the kind of uncertainty that allows for so much power to be used would help with AI? It could just as well deflect earth from it's cozy paperclip factory, while observing it's development. And from anti-natalist viewpoint it would be a disaster to not exterminate humanity. The whole problem is that such kind of uncertainty in humans behaves like other human preferences and just calling it "uncertainty" or "non-fanatical maximization" doesn't make it more universal.
But you would spend a star to stop other rando from messing with humanity's future, right? My point was more about humans not being low-impact, or impact measure depending on values. Because if even humans would destroy stars, I don't get what people mean by non-fanatical maximization or why it matters.
If you elevated me to godhood, I would not be ripping the earth apart in service of a fixed utility function.
So, you would leave people to die if preventing it involves spending some random stars?
For example, there is a rubber ball, and the world could be in two states:
State A: Past events HA have happened, current state of the world is A, the ball will fly up, future FA will happen.
State B: Past events HB have happened, current state of the world is B, the ball will fall down, future FB will happen.
When ball moves, it chooses/reveals which of those two states of the world are reality. Which seems to give the ball just as much control over the past as it has over the future.
Even if you are not compatibilist, there are certainly some non-free choices (maybe by non-humans or whatever is your criteria) and they would exhibit the same problem.
I would still worry about software efficiency not holding for AGI that starts from just couple of OOM advantage because of higher frequency.
We know how we feel
The description of our feelings is not fundamentally different from the description of any reinforcement learner. They both describe the same thing - physical reality - just with different language and precision.
I see no reason to attribute emotional states to any of these things.
The reason is that they are abstractly analogous to emotional states in humans, like emotional state in one human may be abstractly analogous to emotional state in other human.
I disagree. It's only rational if you already value having high Born measure. Otherwise what bad thing happens if you expect to observe every quantum outcome with equal probability? It's not that you would be wrong. It's just that Born measure of you in the state of being wrong will be high. But no one forces you to care about that. And other valuable things, like consciousness, work fine with arbitrary low measure.
Yeah, but why you can't use uniform density? Or I don't know, I'm bad at math, maybe something else analogous to branch counting in discrete case. And you would need to somehow define "you" and other parts of your preferences in term of continuous space anyway - there is no reason this definition have to involve Born measure.