Minimum reference class SSA, roughly the view that you should only update on the fact that _someone_ made "your" observations, is not presumptuous AFAICT. See Builes (2020), Part 2 for an IMO compelling defense of this view.
But then that violates the conservation of evidence upon you finding out that you are in day one which is entailed by the coin coming up heads but not by it coming up tails
Yeah, though it's not clear how much of a problem this is, especially if you think deflationary views about personal identity are plausible (see the paper I linked). Anyway, my point isn't to defend mrcSSA, just to say that it's a view that some people hold that isn't presumptuous.
It still is presumptuous in pretty much the same way SIA is. It also tells you to update hugely in favor of the universe being big because that raises the odds that someone would have my experiences.
It updates in favor of a multiverse against a single universe, because of fine-tuning. Is that what you mean? I wouldn't really call that "presumptuous". Otherwise it behaves quite differently from SIA.
Minimum reference class SSA, roughly the view that you should only update on the fact that _someone_ made "your" observations, is not presumptuous AFAICT. See Builes (2020), Part 2 for an IMO compelling defense of this view.
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/127150/1191839832-MIT.pdf?sequence=1
That view still is presumptuous because it halves in sleeping beauty. In fact, it therefore implies the doomsday result and the lazy Adam case. https://benthams.substack.com/p/alternatives-to-sia-are-doomed
It _double_ halves in Sleeping Beauty, i.e., doesn't update upon finding out it's Monday. It does not imply Doomsday Argument or Lazy Adam.
But then that violates the conservation of evidence upon you finding out that you are in day one which is entailed by the coin coming up heads but not by it coming up tails
Yeah, though it's not clear how much of a problem this is, especially if you think deflationary views about personal identity are plausible (see the paper I linked). Anyway, my point isn't to defend mrcSSA, just to say that it's a view that some people hold that isn't presumptuous.
It still is presumptuous in pretty much the same way SIA is. It also tells you to update hugely in favor of the universe being big because that raises the odds that someone would have my experiences.
It updates in favor of a multiverse against a single universe, because of fine-tuning. Is that what you mean? I wouldn't really call that "presumptuous". Otherwise it behaves quite differently from SIA.