= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
XiXiDu comments on Metaphilosophical Mysteries - 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 (255)
I'm familiar with that. As I understand it, EY does not say that Bayesian updating is suboptimal. If anything, he says the opposite, that standard rationality gives you the right answer.
Could you be more specific about where you believe that article claims Bayesian updating is the wrong thing to do?
I just answered due to a strong gut feeling. It's some time since I read that article.
But there's always a way to set up a particular situation (at least regarding thought-experiments) where the optimal strategy is by definition of the rules not to update on evidence. If I remember right it didn't matter if Omega left and so it couldn't remove money anymore, because it was capable of perfect prediction and only does bestow those who do not update, i.e. are irrational agents under most other 'real-life' circumstances.
Anyway, I just tried to point you to to something because nobody replied to that particular question yet. I even had to look up what 'TDT' stands for :-)
Sorry for bothering.