Nisan comments on Tendencies in reflective equilibrium - LessWrong

27 Post author: Yvain 20 July 2011 10:38AM

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

Comments (69)

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

Comment author: RichardKennaway 20 July 2011 01:14:26PM 1 point [-]

For example, in Pascal's Mugging, a random person threatens to take away a zillion units of utility if you don't pay them $5. The probability they can make good on their threat is miniscule, but by multiplying out by the size of the threat, it still ought to motivate you to give the money.

Why? Hasn't this been gone over before? Tiny number * big number = not determined by the words "tiny" and "big".

Comment author: Nisan 21 July 2011 12:53:54AM *  0 points [-]

Could you explain your position a bit more?

ETA: Ah, RichardKennaway expressed his position on Pascal's Mugging here.