= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
FAWS comments on (One reason) why capitalism is much maligned - 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 (94)
I read "not clear that X has positive expected value" as something like "I'm not sure an observer with perfect knowledge of all relevant information, but not of future outcomes would assign X a positive expected value."
To clarify: No knowledge of things like the state of individual electrons or photons, and therefore no knowledge of future "random" (chaos theory) outcomes. This was one of the possible objections I had considered, but decided against addressing in advance, turns out I should have.
Logical uncertainty is also something you must fight on your own. Like you can't know what's actually in the world, if you haven't seen it, you can't know what logically follows from what you know, if you didn't perform the computation.
And that was the other possible objection I had thought of!
I had meant to include that sort of thing in "relevant knowledge", but couldn't think of any good way to phase it in the 5 seconds I thought about it. I wasn't trying to make any important argument, it was just a throwaway comment.
I don't understand what this refers to. (Objection to what? What objection? In what context did you think of it?)
I commented on the objection that being unsure whether the expected value of something is positive conflicts with the definition of expected value with:
When writing this I thought of two possible objections/comments/requests for clarification/whatever:
That perfect knowledge implies knowledge of future outcomes.
Your logical uncertainty point (though I had no good way to phrase this).
I briefly considered addressing them in advance, but decided against it. Both whatevers were made in fairly rapid succession (though yours apparently not with that comment in mind?), so I definitely should have.
There is no way that short throwaway comment deserved a seven post comment thread.