Late to the party as usual. But I appreciate considering anthropic reasoning with the boy or girl paradox in mind. In fact, I have used it in the past, mostly as an argument against Full Non-indexical Conditioning. The boy or Girl paradox highlights the importance of the sampling process: a factually correct statement alone does not justify a particular way of updating probability, at least in some cases, the process of how that statement is obtained is also essential. And to interpret the perspective-determined “I” as the outcome of what kind of sampling process is the crux of anthropic paradoxes.
I see that Gunnar_Zarncke has linked my position on this problem, much appreciated.
Late to the party as usual. But I appreciate considering anthropic reasoning with the boy or girl paradox in mind. In fact, I have used it in the past, mostly as an argument against Full Non-indexical Conditioning. The boy or Girl paradox highlights the importance of the sampling process: a factually correct statement alone does not justify a particular way of updating probability, at least in some cases, the process of how that statement is obtained is also essential. And to interpret the perspective-determined “I” as the outcome of what kind of sampling process is the crux of anthropic paradoxes.
I see that Gunnar_Zarncke has linked my position on this problem, much appreciated.