I think I see a similarity between ideal bayesianism and circular reasoning.
My understanding of ideal bayesianism is that it doesn’t actually deal with propositions and sequential reasoning, but compares complete world models against each other. World models don’t have parts which come before other parts, their nature is more similar to a circular chain of propositions than to a non-circular chain of propositions. Hence, comparing different world models is more similar to comparing different circular chains of propositions rather than non-circular chains of propositions.
I think I see a similarity between ideal bayesianism and circular reasoning.
My understanding of ideal bayesianism is that it doesn’t actually deal with propositions and sequential reasoning, but compares complete world models against each other. World models don’t have parts which come before other parts, their nature is more similar to a circular chain of propositions than to a non-circular chain of propositions. Hence, comparing different world models is more similar to comparing different circular chains of propositions rather than non-circular chains of propositions.
Is there validity to this intuition?