LESSWRONG
LW

JamesPfeiffer
920240
Message
Dialogue
Subscribe

Posts

Sorted by New

Wikitag Contributions

Comments

Sorted by
Newest
No wikitag contributions to display.
Probabilities Small Enough To Ignore: An attack on Pascal's Mugging
JamesPfeiffer10y20

Rolling all 60 years of bets up into one probability distribution as in your example, we get:

  • 0,999999999998 chance of - 1 billion * cost-per-bet
  • 1 - 0,999999999998 - epsilon chance of 10^100 lives - 1 billion * cost-per-bet
  • epsilon chance of n * 10^100 lives, etc.

I think what this shows is that the aggregating technique you propose is no different than just dealing with a 1-shot bet. So if you can't solve the one-shot Pascal's mugging, aggregating it won't help in general.

Reply
Probabilities Small Enough To Ignore: An attack on Pascal's Mugging
JamesPfeiffer10y20

1) We don't need an unbounded utility function to demonstrate Pascal's Mugging. Plain old large numbers like 10^100 are enough.

2) It seems reasonable for utility to be linear in things we care about, e.g. human lives. This could run into a problem with non-uniqueness, i.e., if I run an identical computer program of you twice, maybe that shouldn't count as two. But I think this is sufficiently murky as to not make bounded utility clearly correct.

Reply
Experiences in applying "The Biodeterminist's Guide to Parenting"
JamesPfeiffer10y30

Thanks for this. And thanks also for the pointer to Scott's guide.

Did you do any testing pre-pregnancy, i.e. for genetic matchup between you and your husband? And did you do any of the fetal testing mentioned e.g. for autism? Wondering about the cost-benefit on those.

Reply
October Monthly Bragging Thread
JamesPfeiffer12y320

I finished my math PhD thesis in September!

Reply
[Transcript] Richard Feynman on Why Questions
JamesPfeiffer14y60

Indeed, conservation laws correspond to symmetries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_Theorem

Reply
Belief in Belief vs. Internalization
JamesPfeiffer15y20

Along with the other physics-related examples here, Richard Dawkins' pendulum video seems relevant here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bsk5yPFm5NM

Reply
Open Thread: July 2010, Part 2
JamesPfeiffer15y00

I was like this from ages 12-18, perhaps? It started because quite a few people actually were mean to me, but my brain incorrectly extrapolated and assumed everyone was. The beginning of the end was when I started to do something that I had defined as the province of the liked-people (in this case, dating), though it took about two years to purge the habit.

Perhaps there is something you are similarly defining to imply likedness, and you can do that thing.

Reply
Open Thread: July 2010, Part 2
JamesPfeiffer15y00

Monologues or disjointed verbal fragments. When I am mad at someone (hasn't really happened for a few years :) ) I get into dialogues with them, usually going in circles.

Reply
Open Thread: July 2010, Part 2
JamesPfeiffer15y00

For a teaser, the part about singing logarithms looks cool.

Reply
Open Thread: July 2010, Part 2
JamesPfeiffer15y10

Is this actually incorrect, though? As far as I know, people have problems and inadequacies. When they solve them, they move on to worrying about other things. It's probably a safe bet that the awesome people you're describing do as well.

What probably is wrong is that general awesomeness makes hidden bad stuff more likely.

Reply
Load More
No posts to display.