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.

Stuart_Armstrong comments on Why (anthropic) probability isn't enough - Less Wrong Discussion

19 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 13 December 2012 04:09PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (21)
Tags: anthropics sia ssa edt cdt altruism decision decisions

Comments (21)

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

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 13 December 2012 11:20:48PM *  1 point [-]

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).

Comment author: drnickbone 14 December 2012 11:55:57PM 1 point [-]

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.)

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 15 December 2012 12:33:31AM 2 points [-]

excellent

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.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit