FAWS comments on Counterfactual Mugging - Less Wrong

52 Post author: Vladimir_Nesov 19 March 2009 06:08AM

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

Comments (257)

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

Comment author: FAWS 06 September 2010 06:21:04AM 0 points [-]

The issue was whether the formulation makes sense, not whether it makes frequentialists freak out (and it's not substantially different than e. g. drawing from an urn for the first time). In either case P() was the probablitity of an event, not a hypothesis.

In these sorts of problems you are supposed to assume that the dollar amounts match your actual utilities (as you observe your exploit doesn't work anyway for tests with a probability of <0.5*10^-9 if rounding to cents, and you could just assume that you already have gained all knowledge you could gain through such test, or that Omega possesses exactly the same knowledge as you except for human psychology, or whatever).