How about an expanded version: if we could be a timeless spaceless perfect observer of the universe(s), what evidence would we expect to see?

I vaguely object to the common practice of soliciting responses, and implying that the results will/may be meaningful, without simultaneously precommitting to a particular mapping of raw results to inferred meaning. (The precommitment can be done while keeping the mapping secret, by using a hash algorithm.)

Recall that the goal isn't to undershoot reality every time, but to do so half the time.

You can also do Bayesian analysis with 'non-informative' priors or weakly-informative priors. As an example of the latter: if you're trying to figure out the mean change earth's surface temperature you might say 'it's almost certainly more then -50C and less than 50C'.

My general impression is that Bayes is useful in diagnosis, where there's a relatively uncontroversially already-known base rate, and frequentism is useful in research, where the priors are highly subject to disagreement.

1000 - (random 6-digit integer)*(10^-(the XKCD number))

Tell me what Zork is and i'll let you know. : )

Beliefs must pay rent.

Least convenient possible world - we discover the universe will definitely expand forever. Now what?

Or what about the past? If I tell you an alien living three million years ago threw either a red or a blue ball into the black hole at the center of the galaxy but destroyed all evidence as to which, is there a fact of the matter as to which color ball it was?

My first reaction is that this would increase the expected cost of revival, for the same reason that it's harder to get plane tickets if you're in a group that wants to sit near each other.