= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gwillen comments on Why (anthropic) probability isn't enough - 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 (21)
I know that the right way for me to handle this is to read the paper, but it might be helpful to expand your summary to define SSA and SIA, and causal versus evidential agents? (And presumably EDT versus CDT too, though I already know those.)
SIA and SSA are defined in http://lesswrong.com/lw/892/anthropic_decision_theory_ii_selfindication/
(post http://lesswrong.com/lw/891/anthropic_decision_theory_i_sleeping_beauty_and/ sets up the Sleeping Beauty problem).
I've already read your (excellent) paper "Anthropic Decision Theory". Is the FHI technical report basically a summary of this, or does it contain additional results? (Just want to know before taking the time to read the report.)
Thanks :-)
This tech report is more a motivation as to why anthropic decision theory might be needed - it shows that you can reach the same decision in different ways, and that SIA or SSA aren't enough to fix your decision. It's philosophically useful, but doesn't give any prescriptive results.