- #36

JeffJo

- 143

- 25

The problem with the Sleeping Beauty Problem, as it is usually presented, is that the breaks the paradigm under which other probability problems are solved. The point is, you have to develop new rules to cover it, and the controversy always revolves around those rules. That's what I tried to address with my version (it doesn't add new information, btw, it adds the same information Elga added to it but in a more conventional way).Dale said:I am also not convinced by the “no new information” claims. I would like to see an actual calculation from information theory to support that claim. I did such a calculation previously and got 1 bit of information, which seems too high. So I am not confident in my result, but I really don’t think that the 0 information claim is convincing.

I haven't looked at your proof (I find applying information theory to be a bit of a kludge anyway), but based on past (and present, unfortunately) experience I suspect that those who don't like your answer will invent a different way to apply it that gets their answer.