Vladimir_Nesov comments on Counterfactual Calculation and Observational Knowledge - Less Wrong

11 Post author: Vladimir_Nesov 31 January 2011 04:28PM

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

Comments (183)

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

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 01 February 2011 03:48:53PM *  0 points [-]

I don't see how you could possibly know that without knowing where the error in my reasoning is unless you already know with high confidence that in the correct solution the options are either nowhere close to being balanced or identical in every way anyone with consistent preferences could possibly care about.

That's the case. Updateless analysis is pretty straightforward, see shokwave's comment. Solving the thought experiment is not the question posed by the post, just an exercise.

(Although seeing the difficulty many readers had with interpreting the intended setup of the experiment, including a solution might have prevented such misunderstanding. Anyway, I think the description of the thought experiment is sufficiently debugged now, thanks to feedback in the comments.)

Comment author: FAWS 01 February 2011 04:17:53PM 0 points [-]

This raised by confidence that I'm right and both of you are wrong (I had updated based on your previous comment to 0.3 confidence I'm right, now I'm back to 0.8). Skokwave's analysis would be correct if Q was different in the counterfactual world. I'm going to reply there in more detail.