You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Luke_Grecki comments on Pascal's Mugging as an epistemic problem - Less Wrong Discussion

3 [deleted] 04 October 2010 05:52PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (37)

Comments (37)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 06 October 2010 06:10:36AM 0 points [-]

But being vulnerable to Pascal's Mugging is such a serious flaw, I'm tempted to say that it's just a necessary requirement for mental stability, so any utility function and predictor which don't guarantee this when they're combined should be considered incompatible.

Is the wording of this correct? Did you mean to say that vulnerability to Pascal's mugging is a necessary requirement for mental stability or the opposite?

Comment author: jimrandomh 06 October 2010 01:59:56PM 1 point [-]

No, I meant to say that immunity to Pascal's mugging is required.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit