You are the one who is constantly changing the subject. In 1. I assume that it was possible for the observer to have found himself in an atheistic world. Now, you may disagree with that assumption, but it within certain theories, such as eternal inflation, all possible quantum states of the observbable part of the universe are realized. In that setting all possible histories are real, but some are more probable than others.

Of course, you can then say that there exists a planet on which pink elephants live that can climb trees. But that's besides the issue here.

If you simply refuse to accept the premise, that is fine, if you just say so. But what you do is you substitute your own twisted idea of Bayesian probability to make the whole thing sound ridiculous.


That you don't understand it doesn't mean it is flawed. That you can apply it in a flawed way doesn't mean that the method is fundamentally flawed.

Hint: the word ''belief'' is used in a general way. Usually it means prior knowledge. In your ridiculous examples the belief does not correpond to a real knowledge about the system at all, but rather to a nonsensical delusion.

Let me know when you have rewritten the wiki articles on Bayesian probability. I will stop responding to your childish propaganda here.