Both the original post and subsequent comments seem to have some misconceptions regarding the Ap distribution as introduced by Jaynes.
(i) @criticalpoints claims that "way to think about the proposition Ap is as a kind of limit ... The proposition Ap can be thought of a shorthand for an infinite collection of evidences." But as also noted, Jaynes wants Ap to say that "regardless of anything else you may have been told, the probability of A is p." But in general, this need not involve any limit, or an infinite amount of evidence. For any proposition A, and probability value p, the proposition Ap is something of a formal maneuver, which merely asserts whatever would be minimally required for a rational agent possessing said... (read 354 more words →)
Both the original post and subsequent comments seem to have some misconceptions regarding the Ap distribution as introduced by Jaynes.
(i) @criticalpoints claims that "way to think about the proposition Ap is as a kind of limit ... The proposition Ap can be thought of a shorthand for an infinite collection of evidences." But as also noted, Jaynes wants Ap to say that "regardless of anything else you may have been told, the probability of A is p." But in general, this need not involve any limit, or an infinite amount of evidence. For any proposition A, and probability value p, the proposition Ap is something of a formal maneuver, which merely asserts whatever would be minimally required for a rational agent possessing said... (read 354 more words →)