>Physicists would hardly be intimidated by being shown the algebra of Bayes's Theorem.
Well no they probably wouldn't, but my point wasn't about intimidation and not sure how it's relevant.
Personally I'm a huge fan of Bayes theory both theoretically and practically speaking, I'm using it in two side projects I'm currently working on. My only issue was a stylistic quibble with the author, and I will have to accept it if you frame it as humor. I'll grant I probably should have left it out in retrospect, since it deals with interpersonal subject matter.
>Regarding the rest of your comment, this is addressed in the second linked post.
No you haven't I was specifically referring to the second post.
I made two central claims, neither were responded to.[1]
1. Decoherence is not a thing on the macro scale.
2. Physicists do not take your claim that MWI is falsifiable seriously.
Well no they probably wouldn't, but my point wasn't about intimidation and not sure how it's relevant.
Personally I'm a huge fan of Bayes theory both theoretically and practically speaking, I'm using it in two side projects I'm currently working on. My only issue was a stylistic quibble with the author, and I will have to accept it if you frame it as humor. I'll grant I probably should have left it out in retrospect, since it deals with interpersonal subject matter.
>Regarding the rest of your comment, this is addressed in the second linked post.
No you haven't I was specifically referring to the second post.
I made two central claims, neither were responded to.[1]
1. Decoherence is not a thing on the macro scale.
2. Physicists do not take your claim that MWI is falsifiable seriously.
[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html