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.

Emile comments on Open thread, August 19-25, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: David_Gerard 19 August 2013 06:58AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (325)
Tags: open open_thread

Comments (325)

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

Comment author: Emile 20 August 2013 05:21:31PM *  5 points [-]

I may be fighting the hypothetical here, but ...

If utility is unbounded, maximum disutility is undefined, and if it's bounded, then 3^^^3 is by definition smaller than the maximum so you should pay all to mugger B.

Pay both Muggers a split of the money: For example: If you pay half to each, and they're both telling the truth, you have a 25% chance of not getting either disutility and not having to resist/escape at all (unless one or both is faking, which may improve your odds.)

I think trading a 10% chance of utility A for a 10% chance of utility B, with B < A is irrational per the definition of utility (as far as I understand; you can have marginal diminishing utility on money, but not marginally diminishing utility on *utility. I'm less sure about risk aversion though.)

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 20 August 2013 06:14:05PM 9 points [-]

That's not fighting the hypothetical. Fighting the hypothetical is first paying one, then telling the other you'll go back to the bank to pay him too. Or pulling out your kung fu skills, which is really fighting the hypothetical.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit