drachefly wrote:So, anyway, if you offered me those (essentially) 2:3 odds, I'd totally take the short side of those odds, and in the bizarre case of somehow being able to repeat this bet on independent otherwise identical fictional narratives (ha), I think I would tend to win. 40% just isn't your best estimate.
It's a completely random key mash. So I wouldn't expect it to be the best at anything. I would like to know why you think it's not the best. Is it because it likely can't be* since it's random and thoughtless, or because, knowing other fantasy narratives, you intuitively keep some statistics on them?
Within this fantasy narrative in particular, I've developed a feel for the nature of its laws. Much as in real life, I would be very surprised to find a nonlocal force - even if it only applied to fundamental particles we had not previously created. The kinds of connections that are prone to exist.
But looking back... "It's a completely random key mash. So I wouldn't expect it to be the best at anything." Do you really think that a random key mash is the best way to generate estimates of prior probability in the absence of direct data?
How unlikely would P(data|u.i.d) have to be for you to reject it? Except by comparison to other things, there's no way to gauge that - after all, every time you add a datum, the probability drops. It's only relative probabilities that can actually make you change your mind. With something like 'randomly among those not already on the side'... what probability ratio would you have to see to put you in serious doubt?
That value is the value you implicitly are already using as your prior. You're just not admitting it.