Sue's reasoning is right for Sue, but wrong for Jane (and vice versa), given that 2/3 of sitters will sit in on a 100 Heads interview but 1/2^100 of participants will have a 100 Heads interview. — Michael
So if heads then woken once on Monday and twice on Tuesday, otherwise woken twice on Monday and once on Tuesday.
Sue tells Jane that it's Monday.
What is Jane's credence that the coin landed heads?
I say 1/2.
It's exactly the same reasoning as before.
Sue should reason as if she is randomly selected from the set of all sitters, and 1/3 of sitters sitting in a Monday room are sitting in a heads room.
Jane should reason as it she is randomly selected from the set of all participants, and 1/2 of participants in a Monday room are sitting in a heads room. — Michael
Although you linked to my most recent post, I assume you intended to respond to this one. — Pierre-Normand
No, I was just trying to rephrase your secret mission example into a way that I could understand better. Did I misinterpret it? — Michael
I would argue that Jane should update her credence in the same way in light of the same information. — Pierre-Normand
Was my rephrasing of it wrong? I'm treating DZ#1 as Monday and DZ#2 as Tuesday. If twice at DZ#1 then twice on Monday, if once at DZ#2 then once on Tuesday. If you know what it's DZ#1 then you know that it's Monday. — Michael
Jane shouldn't update her credence to match Sue and Sue shouldn't update her credence to match Jane. — Michael
But we are agreed on the validity of Sue's credences in both scenarios, right? — Pierre-Normand
Neither the sitter nor the participant should update their credence to match the other's. — Michael
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.