From: Wei Dai (weidai@weidai.com)
Date: Wed Feb 12 2003 - 03:05:07 MST
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 02:10:41AM -0500, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> You know, there are days when you want to just give up and say: "Don't
> tell ME how Bayes' Theorem works, foolish mortal." Anyway, for some
> strange reason you appear to be applying Bayes adjustments to the measure
> of observers and *and* to those observers' subjective probabilities.
> That's where the double discount is coming from in your strange
> calculations. You're applying numbers to the measure of observers that
> just don't go there.
I was trying to point out your double discounting by doing the same thing
where it's more obviously wrong. Look at what you wrote earlier again:
> p(.99)*u(.99m observers see 0 => .99m observers choose 0 => .99m observers
> are rewarded && .01m observers see 1 => .01m observers choose 1 => .01m
> observers are punished)
> +
> p(.01)*u(.99m observers see 1 => .99m observers choose 1 => .99m observers
> are rewarded && .01m observers see 0 => .01m observers choose 0 => .01m
> observers are punished)
Now compare this to what I wrote:
> >EU(choose 0)
> >.99*u(.99m R & .01m P) + .01*u(.99m E & .01m P)
> >=
> >.99*.98 + .01*(990-.01)
> >=
> >10.8701
>
> Um... I just don't see where you get these numbers.
I got them by simple substitution from your own formula. Other than
substituting some words with symbols, I just replaced ".99m observers are
rewarded" inside .01*u(...) with ".99m E".
BTW, I wish you would answer my question about global versus local
utility. Which one is the altruist-Platonist supposed to maximize, and
what's the purpose of the other one? If there is any misunderstanding on
my part about what you're saying, getting this question answered should
help correct that.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 12 2003 - 03:08:14 MST