A core tenet of Bayesianism is that probability is in the mind
That argument never had anything to do with Bayesianism as known to the Rev. Bayes...it’s much more to do with Jaynes and Yudkowsky.
Also, it was never valid...it was pointed out a long time ago
that (a form of) probability being in the mind doesn’t imply (a form of) it isn’t in the territory as well.
Armchair arguments can’t prove anything about the territory...you have to look.
The people whose job it is to investigate this sort of thing, physicists , have been unable to decide the issue.
The specific reason for believing in in-the territory randomness is :
That argument never had anything to do with Bayesianism as known to the Rev. Bayes...it’s much more to do with Jaynes and Yudkowsky.
Also, it was never valid...it was pointed out a long time ago that (a form of) probability being in the mind doesn’t imply (a form of) it isn’t in the territory as well.
Armchair arguments can’t prove anything about the territory...you have to look.
The people whose job it is to investigate this sort of thing, physicists , have been unable to decide the issue.
The specific reason for believing in in-the territory randomness is :
Bell’s theorem—Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell’s_theorem