But in this case, she doesn’t get any evidence in the middle of the experiment that she didn’t before. If she did, then the optimal choice could be different. But she doesn’t.
Yes she does. She finds out she’s in the middle of the experiment. Before, she found out she was at the beginning of the experiment. Being at the beginning of the experiment has the same probability either way, but being in the middle does not.
No matter what, she can decide on the optimal strategy for what to do once she wakes up. What information, exactly, does she get in the middle of the experiment that she cannot anticipate beforehand?
What information, exactly, does she get in the middle of the experiment that she cannot anticipate beforehand?
That she’s the one in the experiment. She can’t anticipate it before-hand because she doesn’t know the probability of being in the experiment. It depends on whether the coin lands on heads or tails.
Imaging someone takes a deck of cards. They then flip a coin. On heads, they add a joker. On tails, they add two. They don’t show you the result. You then draw a card. Can you anticipate the probability of getting a joker? If the only observers in the universe were created solely for that experiment, and each of them was given one of the cards, would that change anything?
She can still anticipate the possibility of being in the experiment and therefore make a strategy for what to do if she turns out to be in the experiment. That is all I’m doing here.
If she comes up with a strategy for what to do if she wakes up in the experiment, and then wakes up in the experiment, she doesn’t get any additional information that would change her strategy.
Consider Parfit’s hitchhiker. If your strategy is to pay him the money, you’ll do better, but when it comes time to implement that strategy, you have information that makes it pointless (you know he already picked you up, and he can’t not have done it in response to you not paying him).
In this case, the evidence is certain, but it can be modified so that the amount of evidence you have before making the decision is arbitrary.
Parfit’s hitchhiker can still predict that when he has been picked up, he will have the option of not paying. Is there anything in the argument I actually make that you are objecting to?
But in this case, she doesn’t get any evidence in the middle of the experiment that she didn’t before. If she did, then the optimal choice could be different. But she doesn’t.
Yes she does. She finds out she’s in the middle of the experiment. Before, she found out she was at the beginning of the experiment. Being at the beginning of the experiment has the same probability either way, but being in the middle does not.
No matter what, she can decide on the optimal strategy for what to do once she wakes up. What information, exactly, does she get in the middle of the experiment that she cannot anticipate beforehand?
That she’s the one in the experiment. She can’t anticipate it before-hand because she doesn’t know the probability of being in the experiment. It depends on whether the coin lands on heads or tails.
Imaging someone takes a deck of cards. They then flip a coin. On heads, they add a joker. On tails, they add two. They don’t show you the result. You then draw a card. Can you anticipate the probability of getting a joker? If the only observers in the universe were created solely for that experiment, and each of them was given one of the cards, would that change anything?
She can still anticipate the possibility of being in the experiment and therefore make a strategy for what to do if she turns out to be in the experiment. That is all I’m doing here.
If she comes up with a strategy for what to do if she wakes up in the experiment, and then wakes up in the experiment, she doesn’t get any additional information that would change her strategy.
Consider Parfit’s hitchhiker. If your strategy is to pay him the money, you’ll do better, but when it comes time to implement that strategy, you have information that makes it pointless (you know he already picked you up, and he can’t not have done it in response to you not paying him).
In this case, the evidence is certain, but it can be modified so that the amount of evidence you have before making the decision is arbitrary.
Parfit’s hitchhiker can still predict that when he has been picked up, he will have the option of not paying. Is there anything in the argument I actually make that you are objecting to?