In this case my judgement of the probabilities is that we are completely justified in ignoring the threat.
Do you consider my pascals mugging to be less likely then the general examples of the genre, or do you think that all pascals muggings" probabilities are that we are completely justified in ignoring the threat."
One of which is in a temporally advantaged position in which he can do anything you can do and do more in addition to that - a strictly superior position.
Sorry, explain to me how this hypothetical god-being can exceed my threat consistently? Presuming we are both from the same privileged outside-your-time perspective?
And their claim afterwards? Any threat you can make, they can make. You see why this is a dead end?
That's kind of what I'm trying to point out here. It is a dead end, but I'm actually claiming the below. Sure, someone else can also claim the below as well. We can both make the claims. Now, who do you believe more?
But lets formalize my claim. My claim is that I will make n+1 utilitons happen if n is positive or n-1 utilitons happen is n is negative, as long as you do the opposite of what they tell you to do.
Where n is how many utilitons they offer given any result.
I'm outside of your conception of time. So if they make the threat after this is of no concern to me.
Err, yes. Maybe it is. That's what I'm trying to find out...
Are you saying that I should take some action with the knowledge that it might just be a quirk in the system? Like not posting my hypothesis?
Ahh, makes sense. I actually found many different and interesting solutions to pascals mugging with my search terms though. Just not this "counter" solution.
This thread already shows up pretty close to the top for searches of "pascals mugging solutions" that I've attempted. For that exact phrase it's number 3, and has been before you posted this. I don't know that this particular solution needs to be more closely associated with the search terms then it already is.
I understand that a lot of issues are solved, like the existence of god and so on, but I for one still haven't gotten an appropriate explanation as to why my claim, which seems perfectly valid to me, is incorrect. That proposal is going to further hinder this kind of discussion and debate.
And as far as I can tell, I'm correct. It's honestly very concerning to me that a bunch of lesswrongers have failed to follow this line of reasoning to its natural conclusion. Maybe I'm just not using the correct community-specific shibboleths, but the only one who's actually followed through on the logic is gwern. I look forward to seeing his counter reply to this.