= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Will_Newsome comments on This post is for sacrificing my credibility! - 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 (341)
Yes, I really despise non-decision-theoretic approaches to anthropics. I know how to write a beautiful post that explains where almost all anthropic theories go wrong -- the key point is a combination of double counting evidence and only ever considering counterfactual experiences that logically couldn't be factual -- but it'd take awhile, and it's easier to just point people at UDT. Might give me some philosophy cred, which is cred I'd be okay with.
Actually, it does wrong on a much deeper and earlier level than that, and also you don't grok UDT as well as you think you do, or you wouldn't have considered the lottery question worth even considering.
More precisely, though, I thought the subject was worth your consideration, because I hadn't seen you in decision theory discussion. (Sorry, I don't mean to be or come across as defensive here. I'm a little surprised your model of me doesn't predict me asking those as trick questions. But only a little.)
Re deeper problems, there are metaphysical problems that are deeper and should be obvious, but the tack I wanted to take was purely epistemological, such that there's less wiggle room. Many people reject UDT because "values shouldn't affect anticipation", and I think I can neatly argue against anthropics without hitting up against that objection. Which would be necessary to convince the philosophers, I think.
Compensating over duplicitous behavior in models can tend to clog up simulations and lead to processing halting.
I generally would take all statements as reflective of exactly what some one means if at all possible.
Its also great fun to short circuit sarcasm in a similar way.
I'd be very interested in seeing such a post.
I should at least make a few paragraphs of summary, because I've referenced the idea like three times now, I've never written it down, and if it ends up being wrong I'm going to feel pretty dumb. I'll try to respond to your comment in the next few days with said paragraphs.