UDT takes bet 2.
Can you put your flavor of EDT in clear conflict with UDT? Or are they equivalent?
If you need a rigorous formulation of proof-based UDT, this old post of mine might be helpful. Feel free to ask if anything isn't clear.
Thanks for the link! What I don't understand is how this works in the context of empirical and logical uncertainty. Also, it's unclear to me how this approach relates to Bayesian conditioning. E.g. if the sentence "if a holds, than o holds" is true, doesn't this also mean that P(o|a)=1? In that sense, proof-based UDT would just be an elaborate specification of how to assign these conditional probabilities "from the viewpoint of the original position", so with updatelessness, and in the context of full logical inference and knowledge of ...