ntroPi comments on Pascal's Mugging Solved - Less Wrong

0 Post author: common_law 27 May 2014 03:28AM

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

Comments (29)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: ntroPi 02 June 2014 08:44:29AM *  0 points [-]

I like your solution to pascals mugging but as some people mentioned it breaks down with superexponential numbers. This is caused by the extreme difficulty to do meaningful calculations once such a number is present (similar to infinity or a division by zero).

I propose the following modification:

  • Given a Problem that contains huge payoffs or penalties, try common_laws solution.
  • Should any number above Gogol be in the calculation, refuse to calculate!
  • Try to reformulate the problem in a way that doesn't contain such a big number.
  • Should this fail, do nothing.

I would go so far as to treat any claim with such numbers in it as fictional.

Another LW classic containing such numbers is the Dust Speck vs. Torture paradox. I think that just trying to calculate in the presence of such numbers is a fallacy. Has someone formulated a Number-Too-Big-Fallacy already?