Assuming your priors for each individual explanation is about equal, is there a Bayesian explanation for our intuition that we should bet on Explanation Set A?
Do you mean your prior for A is about your prior for B, or your priors for each element are about the same?
If you mean the first, then there is no reason to favor one over the other. Occam's razor just says the more complex explanation has a lower prior.
If you mean the second, then there is a very good reason to favor A. If A has n explanations, B has m, all explanations are independant and of probability p, then P(A) = p^n and P(B) = p^m. A is exponentially more likely than B. In real life, assuming independence tends to be a bad idea, so it won't be quite so extreme, but the simpler explanation is still favored.
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.
Previous Open Thread
Next Open Thread
Notes for future OT posters:
1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.
2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)
3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.
4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.