that is irrelevant to Nagel unless such knowledge is both physical and complete.
I would still claim that incomplete knowledge is evidence against the likelihood of his position (by conservation of expected probability, it has to be, because a lack of any incomplete knowledge would be strong evidence for his position).
I would still claim that incomplete knowledge is evidence against the likelihood of his position (by conservation of expected probability, it has to be, because a lack of any incomplete knowledge would be strong evidence for his position).
I dont see why.