I don't see how this helps. You can have a 1:1 prior over the question you're interested in (like U1), however, to compute the likelihood ratios, it seems you would need a joint prior over everything of interest (including LL and E). There are specific cases where you can get a likelihood ratio without a joint prior (such as, likelihood of seeing some coin flips conditional on coin biases) but this doesn't seem like a case where this is feasible.

Regarding quantum, I'd missed the bottom text. It seems if I only read the main text, the obvious interpretation is that points are events and the circles restrict which other events they can interact with. He says "At the same time, conspansion gives the quantum wave function of objects a new home: inside the conspanding objects themselves" which implies the wave function is somehow located in the objects.

From the diagram text, it seems he is instead saying that each circle represents entangled wavefunctions of some subset of objects that generated the circle. I still don't see how to get quantum non-locality from this. The wave function can be represented as a complex valued function on configuration space; how could it be factored into a number of entanglements that only involve a small number of objects? In probability theory you can represent a probability measure as a factor graph, where each factor only involves a limited subset of variables, but (a) not all distributions can be efficiently factored this way, (b) generalizing this to quantum wave functions is additionally complicated due to how wave functions differ from probability distributions.

It's an expectation that has to do with a function of the thing, an expectation that the thing will function for some purpose. I suppose you could decompose that kind of claim to a more complex claim that doesn't involve "function", but in practice this is difficult.

I guess my main point is that sometimes fulfilling one's functions is necessary for knowledge, e.g. you need to check proofs correctly to have the knowledge that the proofs you have checked are correct, the expectation that you check proofs correctly is connected with the behavior of checking them correctly.

I paid attention to this mainly because other people wanted me to, but the high IQ thing also draws some attention. I've seen ideas like "theory of cognitive processes should be integrated into philosophy of science" elsewhere (and have advocated such ideas myself), "syndiffeonesis" seems like an original term (although some versions of it appear in type theory), "conspansion" seems pretty Deleuzian, UBT is Spinozan, "telic recursion" is maybe original but highly underspecified... I think what I found useful about it is that it had a lot of these ideas, at least some of which are good, and different takes on/explanations of them than I've found elsewhere even when the ideas themselves aren't original.

I don't see any. He even says his approach “leaves the current picture of reality virtually intact”. In Popper's terms this would be metaphysics, not science, which is part of why I'm skeptical of the claimed applications to quantum mechanics and so on. Note that, while there's a common interpretation of Popper saying metaphysics is meaningless, he contradicts this.

Quoting Popper:

Language analysts believe that there are no genuine philosophical problems, or that the problems of philosophy, if any, are problems of linguistic usage, or of the meaning of words. I, however, believe that there is at least one philosophical problem in which all thinking men are interested. It is the problem of cosmology: the problem of understanding the world—including ourselves, and our knowledge, as part of the world. All science is cosmology, I believe, and for me the interest of philosophy, no less than of science, lies solely in the contributions which it has made to it.

...

I have tried to show that the most important of the traditional problems of epistemology—those connected with the growth of knowledge—transcend the two standard methods of linguistic analysis and require the analysis of scientific knowledge. But the last thing I wish to do, however, is to advocate another dogma. Even the analysis of science—the ‘philosophy of science’—is threatening to become a fashion, a specialism. yet philosophers should not be specialists. For myself, I am interested in science and in philosophy only because I want to learn something about the riddle of the world in which we live, and the riddle of man’s knowledge of that world. And I believe that only a revival of interest in these riddles can save the sciences and philosophy from narrow specialization and from an obscurantist faith in the expert’s special skill, and in his personal knowledge and authority; a faith that so well fits our ‘post-rationalist’ and ‘post-critical’ age, proudly dedicated to the destruction of the tradition of rational philosophy, and of rational thought itself.

...

Positivists usually interpret the problem of demarcation in a naturalistic way; they interpret it as if it were a problem of natural science. Instead of taking it as their task to propose a suitable convention, they believe they have to discover a difference, existing in the nature of things, as it were, between empirical science on the one hand and metaphysics on the other. They are constantly trying to prove that metaphysics by its very nature is nothing but nonsensical twaddle—‘sophistry and illusion’, as Hume says, which we should ‘commit to the flames’. If by the words ‘nonsensical’ or ‘meaningless’ we wish to express no more, by definition, than ‘not belonging to empirical science’, then the characterization of metaphysics as meaningless nonsense would be trivial; for metaphysics has usually been defined as non-empirical. But of course, the positivists believe they can say much more about metaphysics than that some of its statements are non-empirical. The words ‘meaningless’ or ‘nonsensical’ convey, and are meant to convey, a derogatory evaluation; and there is no doubt that what the positivists really want to achieve is not so much a successful demarcation as the final overthrow and the annihilation of metaphysics. However this may be, we find that each time the positivists tried to say more clearly what ‘meaningful’ meant, the attempt led to the same result—to a definition of ‘meaningful sentence’ (in contradistinction to ‘meaningless pseudo-sentence’) which simply reiterated the criterion of demarcation of their inductive logic.

...

In contrast to these anti-metaphysical stratagems—anti-metaphysical in intention, that is—my business, as I see it, is not to bring about the overthrow of metaphysics. It is, rather, to formulate a suitable characterization of empirical science, or to define the concepts ‘empirical science’ and ‘metaphysics’ in such a way that we shall be able to say of a given system of statements whether or not its closer study is the concern of empirical science.