Jeremiah

I prefer a Republican who is not at war with their fellow conturymen. We are all Americans, we should all be fighting on the same side in the same "te...

This is why I keep saying it depends on how Beauty decides to consider her uncertainties. Remember conditional probability is the the probability of e...

If my position was that she somehow magically knew it was tails, then why would I claim it has a 50% uncertainty? If she knew it was tails it would be...

In the event of Tails, Beauty will be awakened on Monday and Tuesday, but due to the nature of the experiment she will not be able to tell the differe...

The 50% each applies to H and T; not the elements in the sets, but the sets themselves.

Let's look at this from the ground up. A sample space is the set of all possible outcomes of a random process. An event is a subset of that sample spa...

Oh really? So you think they are the same thing. If your distribution is the same as Elga's then they should have the same center. Let's find out, by ...

You forgot Heads and Wednesday, Heads and Thursday, Heads and Friday. . . . . and on forever. Then do the same with Tails. And in the process don't fo...

You are misunderstanding, it is an event inside of an event. That is conditional probability, and that is also the reason you can never get away from ...

I think some of you beleive that Lewis and Elga are pushing numbers around to support their argument, but they are actually arguing between two differ...

If you want you could break it down like this: This is your sample space {H,T} In the event of T, which is 50% then you have a new sample space {M,Tu}...

I have been talking about SB this entire time. First a few terms: You have a sample space, that is the total possible outcomes, then you have the even...

Really? Also make sure we don't confuse proportion with the sample space.

There is another sample space you are not even considering. {H,T}

Or perhaps that is just innocent word usage. Just is kind of a hard word to avoid, there are not a lot of options that fill its role so concisely. Why...

One more point I want to press. You can slice up probability up whichever way you like, and argue all types of samples space that pay no mind to relev...

If we are to argue temporal location as relevant to update the probability model, and our task is to do so as if we are Beauty, then sleeping periods ...

The relevant context is the awakened Beauty after the interview, as she is asked the question when awakened; it is right in the OP, which would mean y...

As long as Beauty is uncertain of her temporal location, then Beauty only has two relevant sample spaces to choose from: awakenings and the coin flip.

Don't forget to include the possibility she is on the Moon when she awakes. I mean as long as we are adding unnecessary entities.

It is the notion we start with a prior then update that prior. You don't update priors in a Classical apporach, as there are no priors. In a Classical...

Why should I even consider the Bayesian approach in the first place?

When considering probability, which is the measurement of uncertainty, then we consider the domain of uncertain possible outcomes. Certain outcomes br...

Speculation on Beauty's possible speculation was never a good foundation for reallocation. Elga's argument is: If that is so then when Beauty consider...

That was never my point. My point is that you don't update priors with priors. Priors can be subjective but the "new information" needs to be objectiv...

Is there any argument for not reporting both the 1/2 and 1/3? Seems like a perfectly valid solution to me and if I ever had a similar dilemma in the r...

He is trying to show Elga's argument leads to a contradiction, the same contradiction you posted here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comme...

The simulation proves that both views are valid ways to look that the possible outcomes. All this nonsense about to reallocate or not to reallocate is...

She is asked about if the coin landed on heads, we can't go tails. The short and dry of it is all, is that a coin flip is still a coin flip. I posted ...

I think one of the best ways to envision probability is to imagine what would happen if you did the event 10,00 times, so that is what I have done n =...

One might argue that all else being equal Beauty should go with the 50% credence, since 50 is greater than 33, which gives her a higher chance of bein...

Speculative claims about what Beauty might be thinking before the interview is speculative, and you can't update your probability model on that. The n...

We are already there and no one has been put to sleep yet.

Sorry, I actually misread a few words in your post, however. . . Wednesday is irrelevant. The interview is what triggers the response, before then you...

:smile:

Never-mind misread.

The problem with Elga's argument is that you can't count your temporal location relevant if you don't know what it is.

I already know this. It is a statement showing P+(Heads) does not equal P(Heads). Elga's argument is that her credence in H, because she knew she woul...

I think several of you are way overthinking this, but to be honest, I think philosophers and the like tend to do that. This whole problem was summed u...

1/2+1/6 = 2/3 P+(Heads) = P(Heads)+1/6 1/6 is the differences between P+(Heads) and P(Heads) I think it is just a statement noting the difference, to ...

And Tuesday first week of April in the year 3030 is also in the sample space, I suppose. The sample space is either head and tails, or awakened states...

Tuesdays and Heads is clearly and obviously not in the sample space. It is not a possible outcome, she will be never be interviewed on Heads and Tuesd...

You are not paying attention to what the plus means, where it shows up and where it doesn't show up.

What on Earth do you think that tag question does? I just gave you my response and I am not going to wade through your clear misunderstanding of Lewis...

It says right in the OP, " Sleeping Beauty volunteers to undergo the following experiment and is told all of the following details." That is the first...

Lewis agrees with me that there is no new relevant information which would allow reallocation of credibility. I just disagree with Lewis that that con...

No, and I already commented on Lewis and Elga. Also Lewis is arguing that 2/3 is a consequence of Elga's 1/3 position. Lewis is arguing for the 1/2. E...

If you can argue the 1/3 without doing the experiment, then you are arguing a prior.

She is never told it is Monday, there is no relevant self-locating information, and she knew there were only three possible awake periods before the e...

If two doors had a 2/3 chance, and you eliminate one of them, then the 2/3 is reallocated to the remaining door and now that one door has a 2/3 chance...