= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Randaly comments on Pascal's Muggle: Infinitesimal Priors and Strong Evidence - 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 (404)
I do not think that you have gotten Luke's point. He was addressing your point #1, not trying to make a substantive argument in favor of cryonics.
I don't think that either Pascal's Wager or Pascal's Mugging requires a probability that is astronomically low. It just requires that the size of the purported benefit be large enough that it overwhelms the low probability of the event.
No, otherwise taking good but long-shot bets would be a case of Pascal's Mugging.
It needs to involve a breakdown in the math because you're basically trying to evaluate infinity/infinity