= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Decius comments on XKCD - Frequentist vs. Bayesians - 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 (89)
Two subtleties here:
1) The neutrino detector is evidence that the Sun has exploded. It's showing an observation which is 36^H^H 35 times more likely to appear if the Sun has exploded than if it hasn't (likelihood ratio of 35:1). The Bayesian just doesn't think that's strong enough evidence to overcome the prior odds, i.e., after multiplying the prior odds by 35 they still aren't very high.
2) If the Sun has exploded, the Bayesian doesn't lose very much from paying off this bet.
I'll bet $50 that the sun hasn't just gone nova even in the presence of a neutron detector that says it has.
If I lose, I lose what $50 is worth in a world where the sun just went nova. If I win, I win $50 worth in a world where it didn't. That's a sucker bet even as the odds of the sun just having gone nova approach 1-Epsilon.
So, what's the default clause on a contract for booze for immediate delivery? What makes you think a rational agent will fulfill the contract?
Maybe the ship's markets are built on Bitcoin and smart contracts with capability-based architectures & automation - they can't not deliver. (Hey, it's the future...)