I'm going to attempt to hijack this thread with something closer to the supposed topic of "rational justice" than merely using bayesian evidence to determine guilt or innocence.

I have a wild idea that the ideas behind TDT could be used to place Rawls' theory of justice on a less irritating foundation. For the uninitiated, Rawls argues that society should determine rules as if they were mediated in an "original position" in which nobody knows their ultimate role or social class in life, and that it is rules determined in such a way that may truly be called "just". This "original position" and the "veil of ignorance" that separates it from the practical world is profoundly frustrating, because in my opinion the individuality that would be necessary for us to consent to the deliberation of rules is necessarily stripped in the "original position", preventing rules determined in such a way from being meaningful.

I don't know very much about TDT, though, and so this could all very well be nonsense. Any opinions?