Arenamontanus comments on Anthropic signature: strange anti-correlations - Less Wrong

51 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 21 October 2014 04:59PM

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

Comments (25)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Arenamontanus 21 October 2014 07:44:00PM 11 points [-]

Neat. The minimal example would be if each risk had 50% chance of happening: then the observable correlation coefficient would be -0.5 (not -1, since there is 1/3 chance to get neither risk). If the chance of no disaster happening is N/(N+2), then the correlation will be -1/(N+1).

It is interesting to note that many insurance copula methods are used to make size-dependent correlations, but these are nearly always of the type of stronger positive correlations in the tail. This suggests - unsurprisingly - that insurance does not encounter much anthropic risk.

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 21 October 2014 07:49:11PM 3 points [-]

When I read this, my first reaction was "I have to show this comment to Anders" ^_^

Comment author: Arenamontanus 21 October 2014 11:53:43PM 7 points [-]

It is pretty cute. I did a few Matlab runs with power-law distributed hazards, and the effect holds up well: http://aleph.se/andart2/uncategorized/anthropic-negatives/