dspeyer comments on Probability and radical uncertainty - Less Wrong

11 Post author: David_Chapman 23 November 2013 10:34PM

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

Comments (71)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: dspeyer 30 November 2013 03:21:38PM 2 points [-]

A universal ontology is intractable, no argument there. As is a tree of (meta)*-probabilities. My point was about how to regard the problem.

As for an actual solution, we start with propositions like "this box has a nontrivial potential to kill, injure or madden me.". I can find a probability for that based on my knowledge of you and on what you've said. If the probability is small enough, I can subdivide that by considering another proposition.

Comment author: David_Chapman 01 December 2013 01:26:19AM 0 points [-]

One aspect of what I consider the correct solution is that the only question that needs to be answered is "do I think putting a coin in the box has positive or negative utility", and one can answer that without any guess about what it is actually going to do.

What is your base rate for boxes being able to drive you mad if you put a coin in them?

Can you imagine any mechanism whereby a box would drive you mad if you put a coin in it? (I can't.)

Comment author: dspeyer 01 December 2013 05:34:24AM 0 points [-]

Given that I'm inside a hypothetical situation proposed on lesswrong, the likelihood of being inside a Lovecraft crossover or something similar is about .001. Assuming a Lovecraft crossover, the likelihood of a box marked in eldritch runes containing some form of Far Realm portal is around .05. So say .0005 from that method, which is what was on my mind when I wrote that.

Comment author: Vaniver 01 December 2013 02:37:19AM *  0 points [-]

Can you imagine any mechanism whereby a box would drive you mad if you put a coin in it? (I can't.)

Perhaps sticking a coin in it triggers the release of some psychoactive gas or aerosol?

Comment author: David_Chapman 01 December 2013 06:12:42PM 0 points [-]

Are there any psychoactive gases or aerosols that drive you mad?

I suppose a psychedelic might push someone over the edge if they were sufficiently psychologically fragile. I don't know of any substances that specifically make people mad, though.

Comment author: Vaniver 01 December 2013 06:52:44PM *  0 points [-]

I'm not a psychiatrist. Maybe? It looks like airborne transmission of prions might be possible, and along an unrelated path the box could go the Phineas Gage route.

Comment author: Bayeslisk 10 December 2013 09:43:39AM 0 points [-]

Alternatively, aerosolized agonium, for adequate values of sufficiently long-lived and finely-tuned agonium.