You might be interested in Steve Pavlina's concept of "Subjective Reality".
For the pure, ideal Bayesian, everything is "evidence". Given the probabilities that you currently assign to all possible statements about the world, when you observe that some statement P is true, you update all your probabilities in accordance with the mathematical rules.
If I then ask, "suppose I don't observe that P is true, only something suggesting that P is likely true?" the answer is that in that case I did not observe P. I observed something else Q. It is then the truth of Q that I should use to update my probabilities for P and everything else.
"The B.1.1.529 (omicron) Spike looks a whole lot like a 'polymutant' Spike experimentally generated to evade antibody responses from infection or vaccination"
At this point I have to wonder about the existence of antinatalist virologists.
I use one of these, the Turmix AX 200. It's exactly what it looks like, a tub of water with a heating element. I get limescale building up, but no algae. Personally, I wouldn't use an ultrasonic one, because I don't care to have ultrasonics blasting in my ears, even if I supposedly can't "hear" them. Loud ultrasonics can damage your hearing even if you can't hear the ultrasonics themselves, and I've no way of measuring how loud they are.
Every pill used today is not a pill not used later. More pills will be made later, for as long as there is a need for them.
Looking at the sky suggests the Sun goes round the Earth.
As we know, the reason they emphasize the "horse" in "horse dewormer" is that some people may have been taking horse-size doses of ivermectin and dying from it.
I thought the people saying "horse dewormer" were emphasising it because "Haw! Haw! HORSE DEWORMER!!! Lookit the stoopid Rethuglicans using HORSE DEWORMER!!! HORSE DEWORMER!!! HORSE DEWORMER!!! Haw! Haw! Haw! HORSE DEWORMER!!! Haw! Haw! Stoopids going to the ER cos they took HORSE DEWORMER!!! Serves them right I hope they die die die HORSE DEWORMER!!!"
EDT seems to mean something different every time someone writes an article to prop it up against the argument, made from its infancy, that it recommends trying to change the world by managing the news you receive of it.
When the decider neither acts on the world nor is acted on by it (save for having somehow acquired knowledge about the world), there is only maximisation of expected utility, and no distinction between causal, evidential, or any other decision theory. When the decider is embedded in the world, this is called "naturalized decision theory", but no-one has a mature example of one.
In the special case where the decider can accurately read the world and act on it, but the world has neither read nor write access to the decision-making process, and no agency in what the decider can know, CDT is correct. In the special case where the decider does not decide at all, but is a passive process that can do nothing but observe its own actions, then EDT is correct. CDT two-boxes on Newcomb and smokes in the Smoking Lesion problem. EDT (as originally formulated) one-boxes and abstains. On LessWrong, I believe the general consensus, or at least, Eliezer's belief, is to one-box and smoke, ruling out both theories.
But there is at least one author (see Eells (1981, 1982) discussed here) arguing that EDT (or his formulation of it) two-boxes on Newcomb.
Recalling a Zen koan, a CDT agent is not subject to causation and an EDT agent is subject to causation, but a naturalized decision theory must be one with causation.