We can only make that inference about conjunctions if we know that the statements are independent. Since (by assumption) we don’t know anything about said world, we don’t know that either, so the conclusion does not follow.
Then I guess the OP’s point could be amended to be “in worlds where we know nothing at all, long conjunctions of mutually-independent statements are unlikely to be true”. Not a particularly novel point, but a good reminder of why things like Occam’s razor work.
Still, P(A and B) ≤ P(A) regardless of the relationship between A and B, so a fuzzier version of OP’s point stands regardless of dependence relations between statements.
We can only make that inference about conjunctions if we know that the statements are independent. Since (by assumption) we don’t know anything about said world, we don’t know that either, so the conclusion does not follow.
Then I guess the OP’s point could be amended to be “in worlds where we know nothing at all, long conjunctions of mutually-independent statements are unlikely to be true”. Not a particularly novel point, but a good reminder of why things like Occam’s razor work.
Still, P(A and B) ≤ P(A) regardless of the relationship between A and B, so a fuzzier version of OP’s point stands regardless of dependence relations between statements.