It seems to me that the paradox&#x2F;confusion here comes from asking someone to consider a distribution over a bound variable - i.e. you are asked to examine the odds of X happening in a situation where there are already side effects of whether or not X happened.<p>In this sense, it reminds me of the puzzle where a man gives you a choice between two envelopes, one of which is specified to contain twice as much money as the other, with the paradox centering on a bystander&#x27;s argument that you should then switch envelopes, since the other one must have either half or twice your value, giving you a 1.25x higher expected value for switching.<p>As I understand it, in both cases the &quot;traditional&quot; solution to the problem is to recognize that probability doesn&#x27;t work that way, and you can&#x27;t consider distributions over bound variables, but the more interesting solution is to rephrase things in Bayesian terms, in which case the analysis is reasonably straightforward.<p>I&#x27;m a dabbler though; experts please tell me if I&#x27;m spouting gibberish.