There is a meta-probability that both Alice and Bob should have, which is that they’ve misinterpreted the evidence—failed to be Bayesean in their mapping of their sensory input to causal probabilities, or made other errors in modeling or calculation.
Alice’s posterior IS SOME EVIDENCE for Bob that he has made fewer of these errors than he might fear, or at least made the same errors as Alice. That would support his posteriors a bit. Better, of course, is a discussion of evidence to identify the overlap and novelty in the reasoning.
None of which REALLY matters, as neither Alice nor Bob are actually updating this rigorously.
There is a meta-probability that both Alice and Bob should have, which is that they’ve misinterpreted the evidence—failed to be Bayesean in their mapping of their sensory input to causal probabilities, or made other errors in modeling or calculation.
Alice’s posterior IS SOME EVIDENCE for Bob that he has made fewer of these errors than he might fear, or at least made the same errors as Alice. That would support his posteriors a bit. Better, of course, is a discussion of evidence to identify the overlap and novelty in the reasoning.
None of which REALLY matters, as neither Alice nor Bob are actually updating this rigorously.