Have I really underestimated the inferential distance so much? I’m curious, is there anyone reading this who could follow the reference?
It is, in fact, a logical deduction from straightforward premises. Moreover it is one that I don’t particularly care about as more than a curiosity.
Stepping back and looking at it objectively, do you not think a more likely conclusion to start with is that there are non-suicidal rational thinkers living in France, who just don’t happen to form a majority?
Technically no. The probability I assign to less than 50% of the population of a country being rationalists is somewhere in the ballpark of a mere 99.999%. That is less than 1. I say ‘technically’ because the comparison is not relevant.
Nitpick: I think you mean underestimated the inferential distance? But that’s not the appropriate concept, because, again, this is not actually a matter of logical deduction. Are you suggesting it’s suicidal for a Frenchman not to emigrate to a country where cryonics is available? If so, I can point out several ways this is not a deduction.
Have I really underestimated the inferential distance so much? I’m curious, is there anyone reading this who could follow the reference?
It is, in fact, a logical deduction from straightforward premises. Moreover it is one that I don’t particularly care about as more than a curiosity.
Technically no. The probability I assign to less than 50% of the population of a country being rationalists is somewhere in the ballpark of a mere 99.999%. That is less than 1. I say ‘technically’ because the comparison is not relevant.
Nitpick: I think you mean underestimated the inferential distance? But that’s not the appropriate concept, because, again, this is not actually a matter of logical deduction. Are you suggesting it’s suicidal for a Frenchman not to emigrate to a country where cryonics is available? If so, I can point out several ways this is not a deduction.
Yes.