Then choosing a decision problem to help answer the question doesn’t seem any more helpful than “make your own decision on the probability problem,” since they’re the same math.
It’s not intended to help with answering the question, no more than dissolving any other definitional debate helps with determining which definition is the better. It’s intended to help with understanding of the thought experiment instead.
Changing the labels on the same math isn’t “dissolving” anything, as it would if probabilities were like the word “sound.” “Sound” goes away when dissolved because it’s subjective and dissolving switches to objective language. Probabilities are uniquely derivable from objective language. Additionally there is no “unaskable question,” at least in typical probability theory—you’d have to propose a fairly extreme revision to get a relevant decision theory answer to not bear on the question of probabilities.
It’s not intended to help with answering the question, no more than dissolving any other definitional debate helps with determining which definition is the better. It’s intended to help with understanding of the thought experiment instead.
Changing the labels on the same math isn’t “dissolving” anything, as it would if probabilities were like the word “sound.” “Sound” goes away when dissolved because it’s subjective and dissolving switches to objective language. Probabilities are uniquely derivable from objective language. Additionally there is no “unaskable question,” at least in typical probability theory—you’d have to propose a fairly extreme revision to get a relevant decision theory answer to not bear on the question of probabilities.