In order to criticise Jaynes’ perspective, you should first understand it. It is not clear to me that you have done that.
Jaynes’ perspective on the historical behaviour of biased coins would make no mention of probability—unless he was talking about the history of the expectations of some observer with partial information about the situation. Do you see anything wrong with that?
In order to criticise Jaynes’ perspective, you should first understand it. It is not clear to me that you have done that.
Jaynes’ perspective on the historical behaviour of biased coins would make no mention of probability—unless he was talking about the history of the expectations of some observer with partial information about the situation. Do you see anything wrong with that?