Emile comments on Conditioning on Observers - Less Wrong

6 Post author: Jonathan_Lee 11 May 2010 05:15AM

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

Comments (118)

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

Comment author: Emile 12 May 2010 04:02:06PM 1 point [-]

I don't agree, because the question is about her subjective probability at an awakening. The betting question you described is a different one.

She would also bet at an awakening. If you ask her to bet when she just broke up, it would seem weird that she would say "my subjective probability for heads is 1/2, but I'll only willing to bet up to $20 - 1/3 of the winnings if it's heads."

It seems even weirder in the Xtreme Sleeping Beauty, where she's awakened a thousand times : "my subjective probability for heads is 1/2, but I'm only willing to bet up to 6 cents".

Yes, you get a different result if you change the betting rules where only one bet per "branch" counts, but I don't see why that's closer to the problem as originally stated.

Comment author: neq1 12 May 2010 04:26:12PM 1 point [-]

It seems even weirder in the Xtreme Sleeping Beauty, where she's awakened a thousand times : "my subjective probability for heads is 1/2, but I'm only willing to bet up to 6 cents".

I guess I don't see why it's weird. The number of times she will bet is dependent on the outcome. So, even though at each awakening she thinks probability of heads is 1/2, she knows if it's tails she'll have to bet many more times than if heads. We're essentially just making her bet more money on a loss than on a win.

Comment author: Emile 12 May 2010 04:56:35PM 2 points [-]

In that case, what does it even mean to say "my subjective probability for heads is 1/2"? Subjective probability is often described in terms of bettings - see here.

Seems to me this is mostly a quarrel of definitions, and that when you say "people who believe the answer is 1/3 pictured counts in a 3 by 1 contingency table, and applied the wrong theory to it.", you're being unfair. They're just using a different definition of "subjective probability"

Don't you think so?

Comment author: neq1 12 May 2010 08:11:33PM 0 points [-]

Based on my interaction with people here, I think we all are talking about the same thing when it comes to subjective probability.

I agree that you can use betting to describe subjective probability, but there are a lot of possible ways to bet.

Comment author: timtyler 12 May 2010 07:18:33PM 0 points [-]

"Subjective probability" is a basic term in decision theory and economics, though. If you want to roll your own metric, surely you should call it something else - to avoid much confusion.

Comment author: Emile 12 May 2010 08:29:08PM 0 points [-]

That is why I'd rather talk in terms of bets than subjective probability - they don't require precise technical definitions.