roland comments on But Somebody Would Have Noticed - Less Wrong

36 Post author: Alicorn 04 May 2010 06:56PM

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

Comments (250)

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

Comment author: roland 05 May 2010 09:51:05PM 0 points [-]

Does this mean you're not interested in a wager regarding 9/11 itself though?

I don't see any sensible way in formulating or adjudicating such a wager.

Comment author: Jack 05 May 2010 10:21:59PM 2 points [-]

Hows that? I gave two possibilities above. There are surely more events that you must think are more likely than I do, given your beliefs.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 06 May 2010 11:27:01PM 0 points [-]

There may not be any such events that he thinks will happen in the near future if he thinks the conspiracy is powerful or competent enough.

Comment author: Jack 06 May 2010 11:32:07PM *  1 point [-]

Right, thats why I gave a long time horizon and offered him odds. I mean if the conspiracy is that strong maybe we won't feel like it is worthwhile to bet. But I could give him 50:1 odds or better depending on the details of the wager and still come out ahead. (ETA: We can't figure it out whether or not a bet is possible until we exchange probabilities)

Comment author: JoshuaZ 06 May 2010 06:16:26PM 1 point [-]

Jack gave possible wagers. Another possible example would be something based on public opinion. Something like "By time T, the consensus view will be that the current accepted view of what happened on 9/11 is wrong." That wording could be made more precise but the basic idea would be clear. One could use it with a specific data point also such as the presence of explosives in WTC7.