This argument seems to depend on the fact that Sleeping Beauty is not actually copied, but just dissociated from her past self and so that from her perspective it seems like she is copied. If you deal with actual copies then it is not clear what is the sensible way for them to all pass around a science journal to record their experiences, or all keep their own science journals, or all keep their own but then recombine somehow, or whatever. Though if this thought experiment gives you SIA intuitions on the Sleeping Beauty problem then maybe those intuitions will still carry over to other scenarios.
This statement of the problem concedes that SB is calculating subjective probability. It should be obvious that subjective probabilities can diverge from each and objective probability—that is what subjective means. It seems to me that the SB paradox is only a paradox if y ou try to do justice to objective and subjective probability in the same calculation.
I’m confused, isn’t the “objective probability” of heads 1⁄2 because that is the probability of heads in the definition of the setup? The halver versus thirder debate is about subjective probability, not objective probability, as far as I can tell. I’m not sure why you are mentioning objective probability at all, it does not appear to be relevant. (Though it is also possible that I do not know what you mean by “objective probability”.)
This argument seems to depend on the fact that Sleeping Beauty is not actually copied, but just dissociated from her past self and so that from her perspective it seems like she is copied. If you deal with actual copies then it is not clear what is the sensible way for them to all pass around a science journal to record their experiences, or all keep their own science journals, or all keep their own but then recombine somehow, or whatever. Though if this thought experiment gives you SIA intuitions on the Sleeping Beauty problem then maybe those intuitions will still carry over to other scenarios.
This statement of the problem concedes that SB is calculating subjective probability. It should be obvious that subjective probabilities can diverge from each and objective probability—that is what subjective means. It seems to me that the SB paradox is only a paradox if y ou try to do justice to objective and subjective probability in the same calculation.
I’m confused, isn’t the “objective probability” of heads 1⁄2 because that is the probability of heads in the definition of the setup? The halver versus thirder debate is about subjective probability, not objective probability, as far as I can tell. I’m not sure why you are mentioning objective probability at all, it does not appear to be relevant. (Though it is also possible that I do not know what you mean by “objective probability”.)