Stuart_Armstrong comments on Anthropic reasoning and correlated decision making - Less Wrong

5 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 23 September 2009 03:10PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (14)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Wei_Dai 23 September 2009 08:17:02PM *  1 point [-]

Using these number, it appears that your expected gain is [p2 + 4(1-p)p + p(p+4(1-p))]/(2-p)

Do you mean "1+p" instead of "2-p" at the end there? If not, where does "2-p" come from?

Since there are N=2 individuals, the CDP thus cancels both the 2 and the (1+p) factors

Why do you say that (N=2), since the number of individuals is actually random? If you EXIT at X, then the individual at Y doesn't exist, right?

Do you think CDP can be formalized sufficiently so that it can be applied mechanically after transforming a decision problem into some formal representation (like a decision tree, or world program as in UDT1)? The way it is stated now, it seems too ambiguous to say what is the solution to a given problem under CDP.

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 24 September 2009 08:11:34PM 0 points [-]

I now think I've got a fomalisation that works; I'll put it up in a subsequent post.

Comment author: casebash 16 April 2016 08:12:14AM 0 points [-]

Was this ever written up?

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 18 April 2016 02:02:27PM 0 points [-]

This is the most current version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiGOGkBiWEo