Maybe my previous reply didn’t really ‘defuse’ yours. I have to admit your objection was compelling—a good intuition pump if nothing else.
But anyway, moving from ‘intuition pumps’ to hopefully more rigorous arguments, I do have this up my sleeve.
(Edit) Looking back at the argument I linked to, I think I can reformulate it much more straightforwardly:
Consider the original Sleeping Beauty problem.
Suppose we fix a pair of symbols {alpha, beta} and say that with probability 1⁄2, alpha = “Monday” and beta = “Tuesday”, and with probability 1⁄2 alpha = “Tuesday” and beta = “Monday”. (These events are independent of the ‘coin toss’ described in the original problem.)
Sleeping beauty doesn’t know which symbol corresponds to which day. Whenever she is woken, she is shown the symbol corresponding to which day it is. Suppose she sees alpha—then she can reason as follows:
If the coin was heads then my probability of being woken on day alpha was 1⁄2. If the coin was tails then my probability of being woken on day alpha was 1. I know that I have been woken on day alpha (and this is my only new information). Therefore, by Bayes’ theorem, the probability that the coin was heads is 1⁄3.
(And then the final step in the argument is to say “of course it couldn’t possibly make any difference whether an ‘alpha or beta’ symbol was visible in the room.”)
Now, over the course of these debates I’ve gradually become more convinced that those arguing that the standard, intuitive notion of probability becomes ambiguous in cases like this are correct, so that the problem has no definitive solution. This makes me a little suspicious of the argument above—surely the 1/2-er should be able to write something equally “rigorous”.
Maybe my previous reply didn’t really ‘defuse’ yours. I have to admit your objection was compelling—a good intuition pump if nothing else.
But anyway, moving from ‘intuition pumps’ to hopefully more rigorous arguments, I do have this up my sleeve.
(Edit) Looking back at the argument I linked to, I think I can reformulate it much more straightforwardly:
Consider the original Sleeping Beauty problem.
Suppose we fix a pair of symbols {alpha, beta} and say that with probability 1⁄2, alpha = “Monday” and beta = “Tuesday”, and with probability 1⁄2 alpha = “Tuesday” and beta = “Monday”. (These events are independent of the ‘coin toss’ described in the original problem.)
Sleeping beauty doesn’t know which symbol corresponds to which day. Whenever she is woken, she is shown the symbol corresponding to which day it is. Suppose she sees alpha—then she can reason as follows:
If the coin was heads then my probability of being woken on day alpha was 1⁄2. If the coin was tails then my probability of being woken on day alpha was 1. I know that I have been woken on day alpha (and this is my only new information). Therefore, by Bayes’ theorem, the probability that the coin was heads is 1⁄3.
(And then the final step in the argument is to say “of course it couldn’t possibly make any difference whether an ‘alpha or beta’ symbol was visible in the room.”)
Now, over the course of these debates I’ve gradually become more convinced that those arguing that the standard, intuitive notion of probability becomes ambiguous in cases like this are correct, so that the problem has no definitive solution. This makes me a little suspicious of the argument above—surely the 1/2-er should be able to write something equally “rigorous”.