Hi yeah let me call this out on being absolutely retarded. Bayesian Inference is in reference to probabilities, which occur in an ambient probability space denoted (Ω,
![Click for larger image](https://thumbs.newschoolers.com/index.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fmath%2F3%2F2%2Ff%2F32f364b9ce1ef532e74ec04f44a0383d.png&size=400x1000)
,P) where
![Click for larger image](https://thumbs.newschoolers.com/index.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fmath%2F3%2F2%2Ff%2F32f364b9ce1ef532e74ec04f44a0383d.png&size=400x1000)
is a sigma-algebra on the nonempty space Ω and P the probability measure satisfying the usual measure-theoretic constraints. It presupposes the existence of the space, a measurable cardinality of subsets of the space, and a metric on the space.
At no point are you ever asserting the absence of evidence as a global statement, only that the absence of a probability on this space is evidence of its absence ON THIS SPACE. There could be infinitely many other countable subsets for which this holds. You have proven what is the equivalent an anecdotal topos.
TL;DR lrn2 statistics, math, logic, and argue.