= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
bentarm comments on Newcomb's problem happened to me - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (97)
I predict, with probability ~95%, that if Joe becomes unhappy in the marriage, he and Kate will get divorced, even though Joe and Kate, who is not as powerful a predictor as Omega, currently believe otherwise. Joe is, after all, running this "timeless decision theory" on hostile hardware.
(But I hope that they remain happy, and this prediction remains hypothetical.)
I predict with probability ~95% that if statisticians had arbitrarily decided many years ago to use 97% instead of 95% as their standard of proof, then all appearances of 95 and 97 in this comment would be reversed.
How does it change your prediction to learn that I was not considering statisticians' arbitrary standard of proof, but I was thinking about numbers in base ten, and I had considered saying ~90% instead?
Not much for me. I think it about six times more likely that you used base ten numbers to "get to" 95% than it is you came to 95% by coincidence.