> I think you misinterpreted what I said. My belief in Bayesian reasoning was very nearly 1 from the first time I encountered Bayes's theorem. Nothing I've seen

> I think you misinterpreted what I said. My belief in Bayesian reasoning was very nearly 1 from the first time I encountered Bayes's theorem. Nothing I've seen since has changed this, i.e. nothing about Bayes's theorem has surprised me. My question was whether you used Bayesian reasoning to accept Bayesian reasoning as your epistemology. And I don't think you did. Instead, I think you were given a persuasive argument for why it's a good way to think about evaluating claims or making predictions, and then you started to think that way. MWI is an example where there isn't a good way to assign a probability, because so far it's not testable. Instead, people like Sean Carrol are convinced by the mathematics that it's true, or they're skeptical for some reason like it violating Occam's razor or the measurement problem you pointed out. At any rate, it's isn't because there is some probability attached. IOW, Bayesian reasoning isn't the only reason we believe things.