OrphanWilde comments on Being Half-Rational About Pascal's Wager is Even Worse - Less Wrong

18 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 18 April 2013 05:20AM

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

Comments (168)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 18 April 2013 07:42:10AM 0 points [-]

Isn't Fermi the guy who insisted that a nuclear reaction could set the atmosphere on fire in a massive nuclear reaction?

I'm having trouble making sense of the quoted section. It makes a lot more sense if that's what they're talking about, especially the "if it means that we may die of it," rather than the possibility of a nuclear reaction in general.

Comment author: CarlShulman 18 April 2013 05:20:02PM 10 points [-]

Isn't Fermi the guy who insisted that a nuclear reaction could set the atmosphere on fire in a massive nuclear reaction?

That was Teller. And I think it was more "raised the possibility" than "insisted."

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 18 April 2013 05:28:31PM 3 points [-]

Isn't Fermi the guy who insisted that a nuclear reaction could set the atmosphere on fire in a massive nuclear reaction?

Not as far as I know. This was considered technically even though it seemed obviously false on its face, assigned an even lower credence afterward, and then it didn't in fact turn out to be true.