Upvoted in furious, happy disagreement, because I was going to post this very thing, with a confidence level of 20%, but then I reasoned out that this was unbelievably stupid and the probability of infinite Bayesian evidence being possible should be the same as probabilities for other things we have very strong reason to believe are simply impossible: 1 - epsilon.
I do believe the 100% thing, though. It’s just that in this case, karma is not maximized where spirit-of-the-game is maximized, and I thought I’d point that out.
Gaining utility from karma, illegitemate or fraudulent sources regardless, is an ongoing problem which never ceases to amuse me. Let the humans have their fun!
Upvoted in furious, happy disagreement, because I was going to post this very thing, with a confidence level of 20%, but then I reasoned out that this was unbelievably stupid and the probability of infinite Bayesian evidence being possible should be the same as probabilities for other things we have very strong reason to believe are simply impossible: 1 - epsilon.
I’m pretty sure the probability of almost certainly impossible things being possible is lower than 1-epsilon. Except for very large values of epsilon.
Indeed, for values of epsilon approaching one.
I suppose if I wanted to maximize karma I should have stated a confidence level of 0%.
You’re supposed to post things you actually believe, you know! What are you, a spirit-of-the-game violator?
I do believe the 100% thing, though. It’s just that in this case, karma is not maximized where spirit-of-the-game is maximized, and I thought I’d point that out.
Gaining utility from karma, illegitemate or fraudulent sources regardless, is an ongoing problem which never ceases to amuse me. Let the humans have their fun!