I roll a fair 100 sided dice.

Eliezer asks me to state my confidence that I won't roll a 1.

I say I am 99% confident I won't roll a 1, using basic math.

Eliezer says "AHA, you idiot, I checked all of your past predictions and when you predicted something with confidence 99%, it only happened 90% of the time! So you can't say you're 99% confident that you won't roll a 1"

I am impressed by the ability of my past predictions to affect the roll of a dice, and promptly run off to become a wizard.

Yeah, I've been writing up critiques for a year or two now, collected over at my substack. I've been posting them to the EA forum and even Lesswrong itself and they've been generally well received.

As a physicist, this quote got me so mad I wrote an excessively detailed debunking a while back. It's staggeringly wrong.

Current physicist here: yeah, most physicists are in the "shut up and calculate" camp, and view the interpretations as fun lunchroom conversation.

I also think that collapse is unsatisfying, and I think yud did an adequate job in relaying the reasons why a lot of physicists are unhappy with it. The problem is that "collapse is unsatisfying" is not sufficient evidence to declare that MWI is true and that MWI nonbelievers are fools. The obvious point being that there a shitload of other interpretations which neither feature many-worlds or "real" collapse. The other point is that MWI is an incomplete theory, as there are no explanation for the Born probabilities. Also, we know we don't have the full picture of quantum physics anyway (as it's incompatible with general relativity), so it's possible that if we figure out a unified theory the problems with interpretations will go away.