This interpretation makes sense even in the absence of “agents” with “beliefs”, or “independent experiments” repeated infinitely many times. It directly talks about maps matching territories, and the role probability plays, without invoking any of the machinery of frequentist or subjectivist interpretations.
Yeah, I basically buy that complaint. None of this was intended to get rid of priors, because a correct model shouldn’t get rid of priors.
In that case I’m confused about this statement
What is priors in the absence of something like agents with beliefs?
Frequencies are one example.
Here’s what you wrote:
Do you still agree with yourself?
I’m no longer sure. Thanks!