If the Everett interpretation is true, then all experiences are already amplified exponentially. Unless I’m missing something, a QC doesn’t deserve any special consideration. It all adds up to normality.
You don’t seem to be missing anything, if Everett is true then this is a whole different issue (future post) and QCs become worth as much as measuring n superpositions (creating n many worlds) and then running a classical simulation.
As to decision theory there are good papers* explaining why you do want your decision theory to be normalised IF you don’t want many worlds to break your life.
If the Everett interpretation is true, then all experiences are already amplified exponentially. Unless I’m missing something, a QC doesn’t deserve any special consideration. It all adds up to normality.
You don’t seem to be missing anything, if Everett is true then this is a whole different issue (future post) and QCs become worth as much as measuring n superpositions (creating n many worlds) and then running a classical simulation.
As to decision theory there are good papers* explaining why you do want your decision theory to be normalised IF you don’t want many worlds to break your life.
David Deutsch: https://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/9906/9906015.pdf *Hillary Greaves: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312136 (much more approachable)