I don’t think what you’re saying is tangential at all: I think it’s exactly the point. You’re making the same point that I’m attempting to make in the second paragraph of my footnote: that doing a random drawing over all people ever is an invalid prior (until we’re extinct). As you say, the line of thinking makes no sense in the first place: it’s an invalid assumption, because it breaks causality: it’s assuming we know what will happen in the future when we actually have no more than a clue.
I don’t think what you’re saying is tangential at all: I think it’s exactly the point. You’re making the same point that I’m attempting to make in the second paragraph of my footnote: that doing a random drawing over all people ever is an invalid prior (until we’re extinct). As you say, the line of thinking makes no sense in the first place: it’s an invalid assumption, because it breaks causality: it’s assuming we know what will happen in the future when we actually have no more than a clue.