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 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”.)