I considered this, and I’m not sure if I am considering the mugging from the right perspective.
For instance, in the case of a mugger who is willing to talk with you, even if the actual amount of evidence was mathematically indeterminate (Say the amount is defined as ‘It’s a finite number higher than any number that could fit in your brain.’ and the probability is defined as ‘closer to 0 then any positive number you can fit in your brain that isn’t 0’) you might still attempt to figure out the direction that talking about evidence made the evidence about the mugger go and use that for decision making
If as you talk to him, the mugger provides more and more evidence that he is a matrix lord, you could say “Sure, Here’s 5 dollars.”
Or If as you talk to him, the mugger provides more and more evidence that he is a mugger, you could say
“No, go away.”
(Note: I’m NOT saying the above is correct or incorrect yet! Among other things, you could also use the SPEED at which the mugger was giving you evidence as an aid to decision making. You might say yes to a Mugger who offers a million bits of evidence all at once, and no to a Mugger who offers evidence one bit at a time.)
However, in the case below, you can’t even do that—Or you could attempt to, but with the worry that even talking about it itself makes a decision:
Cruel Mugger: “Give me 5 dollars and I use my powers to save a shitload of lives. Do anything else, like talking about evidence or walking away, and they die.”
So, to consider the problem from the right perspective, should I be attempting to solve the Mugging, the Cruel Mugging, both separately, or both as if they are the same problem?
I considered this, and I’m not sure if I am considering the mugging from the right perspective.
For instance, in the case of a mugger who is willing to talk with you, even if the actual amount of evidence was mathematically indeterminate (Say the amount is defined as ‘It’s a finite number higher than any number that could fit in your brain.’ and the probability is defined as ‘closer to 0 then any positive number you can fit in your brain that isn’t 0’) you might still attempt to figure out the direction that talking about evidence made the evidence about the mugger go and use that for decision making
If as you talk to him, the mugger provides more and more evidence that he is a matrix lord, you could say “Sure, Here’s 5 dollars.”
Or If as you talk to him, the mugger provides more and more evidence that he is a mugger, you could say “No, go away.”
(Note: I’m NOT saying the above is correct or incorrect yet! Among other things, you could also use the SPEED at which the mugger was giving you evidence as an aid to decision making. You might say yes to a Mugger who offers a million bits of evidence all at once, and no to a Mugger who offers evidence one bit at a time.)
However, in the case below, you can’t even do that—Or you could attempt to, but with the worry that even talking about it itself makes a decision:
Cruel Mugger: “Give me 5 dollars and I use my powers to save a shitload of lives. Do anything else, like talking about evidence or walking away, and they die.”
So, to consider the problem from the right perspective, should I be attempting to solve the Mugging, the Cruel Mugging, both separately, or both as if they are the same problem?