Probability: If the typical modern {person, LWer} knew all the positive and negative effects of taking {modafinil, piracetam, etc.} they would pay present prices to take them.
Confidence interval(s): If the typical LWer knew the extent of all effects of {cardiovascular, weight-training, other} exercise, and they were able to commit to any amount of said exercise and stick to it, how much would they do?
Assume that any time they spend doing exercise would otherwise have been spent doing other work.
If you want to be more specific, what advice would you give to healthy 25-year-olds, to healthy 40-year-olds, etc.?
What is the minimum effective period over which one should try a new dietary plan, before reaching conclusions on its effectiveness?
(In other words, what is the time granularity for dietary self-experimentation? This question could be generalized to other health issues where self-experimentation is appropriate.)
Probability: You are living in a simulation run by some sort of intelligence.
Probability: Other people exist independently of your own mind.
Probability: You are dreaming at this very moment. (Learning to dream lucidly is largely a matter of giving this a high probability and keeping it in mind, and updating on it when you encounter, for instance, people asking whether you're dreaming.)
Let G be a a grad student with an IQ of 130 and a background in logic/math/computing.
Probability: The quality of life of G will improve substantially as a consequence of reading the sequences.
Probability: Reading the sequences is a sound investment for G (compared to other activities)
Probability: If every person on the planet were trained in rationality (as far as IQ permits) humanity would allocate resources in a sane manner.
What's the probability that the Swiss central bank will maintain its cap on the franc vs. euro? And what is your confidence interval for when they might give it up if they do decide to give it up.
I have a question about Pascal's mugging. This does break the standard question-answer format, but you said not to be squeamish about that, so here goes the problem I am currently considering.
According to the wiki, the Standard Pascal's mugging is formulated like this:
Now suppose someone comes to me and says:
"Give me five dollars, or I'll use my magic powers from outside the Matrix to run a Turing machine that simulates and kills 3^^^^3 people."
Now, further suppose that someone says
..."Never give into a Pascal's Mugging except this one. I
What is the probability that a person who signs up for cryonics will be revived?
(Yes, I did already ask this, but my estimate is far enough from the apparent consensus here that I'd like to see more estimates)
I read once 15 years ago that when a child is born in a modern-day forager group, e.g., in the Amazon with a missing limb, he or she almost always dies because the tribe ostracizes the child unless there are anthropologists or other such visitors to bring the child to 'civilization'.
The OP instructs me to ask for the probability, but I am actually more interested in short descriptions of pieces of evidence that would move the probability by a factor of >3 or <.333 and how independent that piece of evidence is from all the other piece of evidence.
In s...
As for multiple definitions with different answers, can you specify two definitions of 'universe' that have different answers? I of course do not only mean the observable universe.
A 'standard' definition of "universe" is "all existing matter and space". If we allow for the many-worlds hypothesis, then the universe is infinitely large even if a Laplacian Demon could know the entirety of the universe at a given state (i.e.; simultaneously finite and infinite). If we operate under a definition of "universe" whereby the MWI creates a new universe for each "choice", then we have no way of knowing where or if there is an outer bound of our universe beyond the observable lightcone.
Furthermore, if some variants of M-Theory are correct then our universe may be possessed of a specific shape and be limited in scope regardless; so again it could be finite. And again, under other variants of how we interpret M-Theory, each p-brane and membrane is not a separate universe but part of a whole. Which is presumed infinite.
So the problem is that we have no acceptably rigorous definition of what is a "universe" in order to start making assertions about its finiteness or lack thereof.
Even if we use the conventional "assumption" of what our Universe is which existed shortly after the 'discovery' of the Big Bang (i.e.; the collection of galaxies and matter that we can either observe or that directly and observably interacts with what we can observe, and the spacetime continuum these interactions occur within) -- we lack the ability to derive any information about its scope or dimension.
So no probability assertion about the universe's scope should, rationally speaking, have anything remotely resembling a high threshold of confidence. Said confidence should, in fact, approach zero.
I am not in the habit of bothering with probability statements whose confidence is below 1%; I find them not merely a waste of time but damaging.
Isn't it enough to simply say, "There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful reply" to the question?
If we allow for the many-worlds hypothesis, then the universe is infinitely large
OK, you have a good point. I was not considering each branch to count as an entire new space that we need to add up with every other branch. I guess I'm talking about our current branch, right now. Also, I could easily be wrong but I think there are no branch points that create an infinite number of new branches and so there still may be an insanely vast but finite number of branches.
...So no probability assertion about the universe's scope should, rationally speaking, have
Often, there are questions you want to know the answers to. You want other people's opinions, because knowing the answer isn't worth the time you'd have to spend to find it, or you're unsure whether your answer is right.
LW seems like a good place to ask these questions because the people here are pretty rational. So, in this thread: You post a top-level comment with some question. Other people reply to your comment with their answers. You upvote answers that you agree with and questions whose answers you'd like to know.
A few (mostly obvious) guidelines:
For questions:
For answers:
This thread is primarily for getting the hivemind's opinions on things, not for debating probabilities of propositions. Debating is also okay, though, especially since it will help question-posters to make up their minds.
Don't be too squeamish about breaking the question-answer format.
This is a followup to my comment in the open thread.