= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Stuart_Armstrong comments on Sleeping Beauty gets counterfactually mugged - 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 (23)
It doesn't actually matter whether he simulates on or several copies of you - if you divide the expected return by the number of copies that he simulates, the math works out fine.
Standard Sleeping Beauty type problems are also fine. It only in this peculiar set up that there seems to be a paradox.
Hmm I'm still a bit confused. You did the math when there is one simulation of you and found that he expects to make 20 by giving away money and 25 by not.
If there are two simulations doesn't it go the other way? If your strategy is to give away money there are now four indistinguishable siutations. 1/4(£260+£260-£100-£100) = £80
And if you decide not to give money away there are three indistinguishable situations. 1/3(£0+£0+£50) = £16.67