= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
taryneast comments on Pascal's Mugging: Tiny Probabilities of Vast Utilities - 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 (334)
3+3, 3*3, 3^3, 3^^3, 3^^^3, etc. grows much faster than exponentially. a^b, for any halfway reasonable a and b, can't touch 3^^^3
3^^^3=3^^(3^^3)=3^^(7625597484987)=3^(3^^(7625597484986))
It's not an exponential, it's a huge, huge tower of exponentials. It is simply too big for that argument to work.
Yes, I should not have used the word exponential... but I don't know the word for "grows at a rate that is a tower of exponentials"... "hyperexponential" perhaps?
However - I consider that my argument still holds. That the evidence required grows at the same rate as the size of the claim.
The evidence must be of equal value to the claim.
(from "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence")
My point in explaining the lower levels is that is that we don't demand evidence from most claimants of small amounts of damage because we've already seen evidence that these threats are plausible. But if we start getting to the "hyperexponential" threats, we hit a point where we suddenly realise that there is no evidence supporting the plausibility of the claim... so we automatically assume that the person is a crank.