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.

Manfred 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.

Comments (21)

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

Comment author: Manfred 17 December 2012 12:01:14AM *  0 points [-]

Yeah, I didn't know exactly what problem statement you were using (the most common formulation of the non-anthropic problem I know is this one), so I didn't know "9" was particularly special.

Though since the point at which I think randomization becomes better than honesty depends on my P(heads) and on what choice I think is honest. So what value of the randomization-reward is special is fuzzy.

I guess I'm not seeing any middle ground between "be honest," and "pick randomization as an action," even for naive CDT where "be honest" gets the problem wrong.

which made me worry that somewhere out there was a method which somehow comes up with 3/4.

Somewhere in Stuart Armstrong's bestiary of non-probabilistic decision procedures you can get an effective 3/4 on the sleeping beauty problem, but I wouldn't worry about it - that bestiary is silly anyhow :P