In my post, I didn't require the distribution over meanings of words to be uniform. It could be any distribution you wanted - it just resulted in the prior ratio of "which utterance is true" being 1:1.

Is this just the thing where evidence is theory-laden? Like, for example, how the evidentiary value of the WHO report on the question of COVID origins depends on how likely one thinks it is that people would effectively cover up a lab leak?

To be clear, this is an equivalent way of looking at normal prior-ful inference, and doesn't actually solve any practical problem you might have. I mostly see it as a demonstration of how you can shove everything into stuff that gets expressed as likelihood functions.

Why wouldn't this construction work over a continuous space?

oops, thanks for the reminder

Sorry, it will be a bit before the video uploads. I'll hide the link until then.

How would you rate the Book of Mormon as a book? What's your favourite part?

I recently heard of the book How to leave the Mormon church by Alyssa Grenfell, which might be good. Based on an interview with the author, it seemed like it was focussed on nuts-and-bolts stuff (e.g. "practically how do you explore alcohol in a way that isn't dangerous") and explicitly avoiding a permanent state of having an "ex-mormon" identity, which strikes me as healthy (altho I think some doubt is warranted on how good the advice is, given that the author's social media presence is primarily focussed on being ex-mormon). The book is associated with a website.

NB: I have a casual interest in high-demand religions, but have never been a part of one (with the arguable exception of the rationality/EA community).