or in the case of attraction, an event or action that only would occur if they had a much greater level of attraction existing below the surface.
This seems misleading, à la Sherlock Holmes’ “Eliminating the impossible”. A charitable reading would parse as:
“or in the case of attraction, an event or action where the most probable world (as calculated with Bayes) in which it happens also requires a much greater level of attraction existing below the surface.”
Just wanted to make sure I’m not inventing new interpretations and that there’s no hidden inferential distance.
This seems misleading, à la Sherlock Holmes’ “Eliminating the impossible”. A charitable reading would parse as:
“or in the case of attraction, an event or action where the most probable world (as calculated with Bayes) in which it happens also requires a much greater level of attraction existing below the surface.”
Just wanted to make sure I’m not inventing new interpretations and that there’s no hidden inferential distance.