If you think 1⁄2 is a valid probability in its own model. I would assume you are also interested in the probability update rule of this model, i.e. how can Beauty justify the probability of Heads to be 1⁄2 after learning it is Monday.
Since you said 1⁄2 is a valid answer for its own model. You would want to know if that model is self-consistent? Not just picking whichever answer that seems least problematic?
What I mean is: It seems a bizarre thing to start with a model and then conjure a conclusion and then try to justify that the conclusion is consistent with the model. Why would you assume that I would be interested in doing any such thing?
If you think 1⁄2 is a valid probability in its own model. I would assume you are also interested in the probability update rule of this model, i.e. how can Beauty justify the probability of Heads to be 1⁄2 after learning it is Monday.
Why would I be interested in finding a justification for that particular update?
Since you said 1⁄2 is a valid answer for its own model. You would want to know if that model is self-consistent? Not just picking whichever answer that seems least problematic?
What I mean is: It seems a bizarre thing to start with a model and then conjure a conclusion and then try to justify that the conclusion is consistent with the model. Why would you assume that I would be interested in doing any such thing?