Excellently explained, thank you. The argument you present seems to me to be on the whole reasonable, but it involves two assumptions no UCMA enthusiast I know of would ever accept.
Supposing any given X has 50% probability of being true of any given m...
And
"A(m) is true if mind 'm', when presented with the argument A, will change some specific belief / internal state / thought / behavior to state Y"
These two assumptions aren't argued for, nor are they attributed to any UCMA enthusiast, so I cant see any reason why she should accept them. Do they seem plausible to you? If so, can you give me reasons to accept them?
Supposing any given X has 50% probability of being true of any given m (...)
This isn't a direct claim of fact, but a flat assumption to simplify illustration and calculations. The same argument extends for any arbitrary probability by showing that mathematically, no matter the probability in question (as long as it is a probability, and not a 0 or 1), as the number of possible minds grows towards infinity, the chance of X being true for all minds keeps decreasing in a similar manner.
The hidden assumption behind this, of course, is that I have a high pr... (read more)
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.