Theoretically, that’s the question he’s asking about Pascal’s Mugging, since accepting the mugger’s argument would tell you that expected utility never converges. And since we could rephrase the problem in terms of (say) diamond creation for a diamond maximizer, it does look like an issue of probability rather than goals.
Theoretically, that’s the question he’s asking about Pascal’s Mugging, since accepting the mugger’s argument would tell you that expected utility never converges
And since we could rephrase the problem in terms of (say) diamond creation for a diamond maximizer, it does look like an issue of probability rather than goals.
It’s a problem of expected utility, not necessarily probability. And I still would like to know which axiom it ends up violating. I suspect Continuity.
We can replace Continuity with the Archimedean property (or, ‘You would accept some chance of a bad outcome from crossing the street.‘) By my reading, this ELU idea trivially follows Archimedes by ignoring the part of a compound ‘lottery’ that involves a sufficiently small probability. In which case it would violate Independence, and would do so by treating the two sides as effectively equal when the differing outcomes have small enough probability.
Theoretically, that’s the question he’s asking about Pascal’s Mugging, since accepting the mugger’s argument would tell you that expected utility never converges. And since we could rephrase the problem in terms of (say) diamond creation for a diamond maximizer, it does look like an issue of probability rather than goals.
Of course, and the paper cited in http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Pascal’s_mugging makes that argument rigorous.
It’s a problem of expected utility, not necessarily probability. And I still would like to know which axiom it ends up violating. I suspect Continuity.
We can replace Continuity with the Archimedean property (or, ‘You would accept some chance of a bad outcome from crossing the street.‘) By my reading, this ELU idea trivially follows Archimedes by ignoring the part of a compound ‘lottery’ that involves a sufficiently small probability. In which case it would violate Independence, and would do so by treating the two sides as effectively equal when the differing outcomes have small enough probability.