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.

Mestroyer comments on The Doubling Box - Less Wrong Discussion

13 Post author: Mestroyer 06 August 2012 05:50AM

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

Comments (82)

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

Comment author: Mestroyer 06 August 2012 06:52:57AM 0 points [-]

If your utility function is bounded and you discount the future, then pick an amount of time after now, epsilon, such that the discounting by then is negligible. Then imagine that the box disappears if you don't open it by then. at t = now + epsilon * 2^-1, the utilons double. At 2^-2, they double again. etc.

But if your discounting is so great that you do not care about the future at all, I guess you've got me.

This isn't the St. Petersburg paradox (though I almost mentioned it) because in that, you make your decision once at the beginning.

Comment author: pragmatist 06 August 2012 08:42:39AM 0 points [-]

If your utility function is bounded and you discount the future, then pick an amount of time after now, epsilon, such that the discounting by then is negligible. Then imagine that the box disappears if you don't open it by then. at t = now + epsilon * 2^-1, the utilons double. At 2^-2, they double again. etc.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting you, but I don't see how this scheme is compatible with a bounded utility function. For any bound n, there will be a time prior to epsilon where the utilons in the box will be greater than n.

When you say "At 2^-2...", I read that as "At now + epsilon * 2^-1 + epsilon * 2^-2...". Is that what you meant?

Comment author: Mestroyer 06 August 2012 02:08:50PM 0 points [-]

yeah, that's what I meant. Also, instead of doubling, make it so they exponentially decay toward the bound.