I'm willing to bite the bullet here because all hell breaks loose if I don't. We don't know how a Bayesian agent can ever function if it's allowed (and therefore required) to doubt arbitrary mathematical statements, including statements about its own algorithm, current contents of memory, arithmetic, etc. It seems easier to just say 1.0 as a stopgap. Wei Dai, paulfchristiano and I have been thinking about this issue for some time, with no results.