Hi! My main issue with this is not that P(“2+2=4”) = 0.99 is extravagant, but rather that it allows us to use the Bayesian framework to make judgments about the Bayesian framework itself. Such self-referential instruments/mixing metalanguage with the object language usually require additional care in mathematical logic and can be dangerous (e.g., the liar paradox).
Don’t you find the application of law of the total probability to the statement/event “law of the total probability is true”, with a prior of P(“law of the total probability is true”) = 0.99, at ...
I think you are slightly misrepresenting the pro-objective-collapse position. A collapser believes in collapse not because the many-worlds interpretation seems too bizarre to be true, but simply because, for him, it is an experimental fact -- the evidence B. To be more precise: it is a fact that he (his consciousness, soul, etc.) directly observes that the cat is dead, which means the state is somehow selected. For him, the real question is why this particular state is realized and why he experiences it.
Of course, one could argue that the state is not pref... (read more)