Disclaimer: I haven’t read the Logical Induction paper, which may explain my lack of intuition.
Is there maybe a way to explain your theory of Judgement more directly, just in epistemic terms of belief and probability theory, without falling back to instrumental sounding trading analogies around buying and selling stuff for some price? Similar to the Radical Probabilism post perhaps? (Though that one also mentioned some instrumental arguments like money pumps / Dutch book arguments.)
Yeah, for better or worse, the logical induction paper is probably the best thing to read. The idea is actually to think of probabilities as prediction-market prices; the market analogy is a very strong one, not an indirect way of gesturing at the idea.
Disclaimer: I haven’t read the Logical Induction paper, which may explain my lack of intuition.
Is there maybe a way to explain your theory of Judgement more directly, just in epistemic terms of belief and probability theory, without falling back to instrumental sounding trading analogies around buying and selling stuff for some price? Similar to the Radical Probabilism post perhaps? (Though that one also mentioned some instrumental arguments like money pumps / Dutch book arguments.)
Yeah, for better or worse, the logical induction paper is probably the best thing to read. The idea is actually to think of probabilities as prediction-market prices; the market analogy is a very strong one, not an indirect way of gesturing at the idea.