= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
magfrump comments on Pascal's Mugging as an epistemic problem - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (37)
Loss aversion?
If there is a one in ten quadrillion chance of the mugger being honest, you are far more likely to have all your money taken from you by charlatans and then starve to death while homeless (thus losing your ability to even make the deal with an honest mugger!) than you are to meet an honest one before that.
Incentives?
If you give this mugger 10 bucks, then ANYONE IN THE WORLD can walk up to you and take 10 bucks from you as many times as they want using the same logic.
Assuming you have all the money in the world you are still 94.08% likely to run out of money before getting rewarded, assuming one in a quadrillion chance of winning for every $10 entered into this lottery.
Mhm, which leads to debate about cryonics. Is it in the reference class of 'magic' or 'speculative investment'?
Anyone in the world can walk up to you and say "I'll give you one hundred quadrillion utiles."
A cryonics organization also shows you that there are others who trust them, demonstrates some scientific feasibility for the process they're carrying out, and demonstrate that it is serious enough for at least one life insurance carrier to deal with it.
These seem like very different situations to me.
If they promise you a post-Singularity awakening, it's magic, otherwise it's speculative investment.