The example is really helpful for me getting a concrete understanding of what it looks like to satisfy Trust without Reflection, and why that goes along with deferring to someone else for decisions—but I don’t see what this example of Alice has to do with locality. It looks like the only relevant propositions are whether it rains tomorrow, and what Alice’s credences are, and there don’t seem to be any propositions we don’t defer to her on.
There are six total worlds:R∧A=1,R∧A=.75,R∧A=.25,¬R∧A=.75,¬R∧A=.25, and¬R∧A=0.
All we get are Alice’s credences in rain (given by an inequality), so the only propositions we might learn are {w1},{w1,w2,w4},{w1,w2,w3,w4,w5}(corresponding to non-trivial A≥t propositions), and {w2,w3,w4,w5,w6},{w3,w5,w6}, and {w6} (corresponding to non-trivial A≤t propositions). Local trust only constrains your reaction to these propositions directly, so it won’t require deference on the other 58 events. (Well, 56.)
The example is really helpful for me getting a concrete understanding of what it looks like to satisfy Trust without Reflection, and why that goes along with deferring to someone else for decisions—but I don’t see what this example of Alice has to do with locality. It looks like the only relevant propositions are whether it rains tomorrow, and what Alice’s credences are, and there don’t seem to be any propositions we don’t defer to her on.
There are six total worlds:R∧A=1,R∧A=.75,R∧A=.25,¬R∧A=.75,¬R∧A=.25, and¬R∧A=0.
All we get are Alice’s credences in rain (given by an inequality), so the only propositions we might learn are {w1},{w1,w2,w4},{w1,w2,w3,w4,w5}(corresponding to non-trivial A≥t propositions), and {w2,w3,w4,w5,w6},{w3,w5,w6}, and {w6} (corresponding to non-trivial A≤t propositions). Local trust only constrains your reaction to these propositions directly, so it won’t require deference on the other 58 events. (Well, 56.)