= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
AlephNeil comments on Dutch Books and Decision Theory: An Introduction to a Long Conversation - 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 (100)
Your choice is either accepting that you will be sometimes inconsistent, or accepting that you will sometimes answer "I don't know" without providing a specific number, or both.
There's nothing wrong with "I don't know".
For Perfect Bayesian or for Subjective Bayesian?
Subjective Bayesian does believe many statements of kind P(simple math step) = 1, P(X|conjunction of simple math steps) = 1, and yet P(X) < 1.
Well, they can wriggle out of this by denying P(simple math step) = 1, which is why I introduced this variation.
Doesn't this imply you'd be willing to accept P(2+2=5) on good enough odds?
This might be pragmatically a reasonable thing to do, but if you accept that all math might be broken, you've already given up any hope of consistency.