6 ms·

If you set the probability at zero, you won't be convinced when they actually are an operator from the seventh dimension. That is to say, you run into the oppos

If you set the probability at zero, you won't be convinced when they actually are an operator from the seventh dimension. That is to say, you run into the opposite problem of being Pascal's Muggle [1]. 1: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Ap4KfkHyxjYPDiqh2/pascal-s-muggle-infinitesimal-priors-and-strong-evidence https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Ap4KfkHyxjYPDiqh2/pascal-s-m... > A wind begins to blow about the alley, whipping the Mugger's loose clothes about him as they shift from ill-fitting shirt and jeans into robes of infinite blackness, within whose depths tiny galaxies and stranger things seem to twinkle. In the sky above, a gap edged by blue fire opens with a horrendous tearing sound - you can hear people on the nearby street yelling in sudden shock and terror, implying that they can see it too - and displays the image of the Mugger himself, wearing the same robes that now adorn his body, seated before a keyboard and a monitor. > [...] "Unfortunately, you haven't offered me enough evidence," you explain.

lidHanteyk 7y ago
In no particular order: * Helping a googleplex of people immediately vs over a period of time are two different complexities of action. * Recall that hypotheses are selected from an ambient pool of possibilities. Then we might imagine that some hypotheses dominate others, so that regardless of how much evidence is offered, we always insist that the evidence supports a simpler alternative. To wit: "Well, if I'm not a Matrix Lord, then how do you explain my amazing powers?" asks the Mugger. "Street magic," you say. "Very impressive sleight of hand. Perhaps some smoke, mirrors, lasers, assistants." * A Matrix Lord asking $5 of a person on the street in order to commit miracles is inherently irrational. If they just wanted $5, or wanted to deprive the person of $5, or wanted to humiliate and embarrass the person, or force them to accept certain philosophical truths, then those all could be achieved via Matrix Lordery. Therefore the Lord in this story is being a pointless dick, and it's silly to expect rational arguments to be part of the conversation. To wit: "Just give yourself $5. Give yourself any reward you like, for helping people; it's not my place to set or fulfill the price of such powerful entities, is it?" you ask. "But...but don't you want the feeling of doing good?" asks the Mugger. "Not really, no," you reply. "I have investments and equity already, and those dollars already have ripples that affect people far beyond my direct control. I don't feel much of anything about those investments. And it would be irrational for me to value a $5 investment more than $5. Really, if you can do all of this good, then you should turn yourself into an exchange-traded fund, and let people buy your time to do good in the world," you muse. "But...but this offer is for you, and you alone," the Mugger insists. "Okay, but why me? Let's talk about the Self-Sampling Assumption!" you say. The Mugger groans.
- YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
  That's a good point: if the Mugger is an Operator from the Fifth Dimension and he has such great magickal powers, why does he need the 10lb in Pascal's wallet? Or, if he does need them, why can't he just get them? Like, we are asked to believe that, given that the Mugger is an Operator from the Seventh Dimension, he has the power to offer 10 quintillion Utils to Pascal, but not the power to just take the 10lb from his wallet. I think the whole paradox can still stand, given that the Mugger can then just offer an amount of Utils that compensates from the much smaller conditional probability of the Mugger being only sorta omnipotent. On the other hand, I think we can easily resolve the paradox by inserting the Crowbar of Cynical Jadedness: If it sounds too good to be true, then its probability of being either good, or true is zero (it can be one or the other with a non-zero probability, but not both). 10 quintillion utils (or however many) sounds too good to be true, so it can't be true. A Used Car Salesman will never offer you a good deal. The Mugger is only lying to get Pascal's money.
joefourier 7y ago
I would agree, that is not enough evidence. Some sort of advanced display technology causing the apparition provides the exact same explainability, and would require no changes to our understanding of the universe and the laws of physics.
YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
Thanks, that's an interesting read. But I don't think it addresses my question: why shouldn't Pascal place the probability that the Mugger is an Operator from the Seventh dimension to _zero_ (rather than an infinitissemally small number)? The point is that, at the time when the Mugger declares himself to be an Operator from the Seventh Dimension who can offer large rewards etc, there is no evidence to suggest he's saying the truth. No evidence at all. Accordingly, the probability that he's telling the truth must be zero. Where does a non-zero probability value come from? Are you then saying that the probability of any reward should never be placed to zero because that would not maximise rewards?
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  Probability zero is the same as saying that it would take infinite evidence to convince you. Even if someone provides amazingly convincing evidence, better than you've ever seen, a flat 0 or 1 eats it. > there is no evidence to suggest he's saying the truth. No evidence at all. Accordingly, the probability that he's telling the truth must be zero. I don't think that logic works. What if the claim was "I have a five dollar bill in my pocket"?
  - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
    >> Probability zero is the same as saying that it would take infinite evidence to convince you. That assumes I can't go back and change my earlier beliefs. But I don't see why that's necessary. If I have no evidence that X is true at time t, I assing a probability of 0 to it. If I acquire evidence that X is true at time t+1, I throw out the 0 and assign a higher probability to X. The world changes all the time. Why am I condemned to hold on to obviously unsound beliefs for all eternity? >> I don't think that logic works. What if the claim was "I have a five dollar bill in my pocket"? That depends. I've seen five dollar bills coming out of peoples' pockets before (actually, I haven't because dollars are not common where I live but Ok). I don't have to assing a zero probability to that. I have some evidence that it's possible. But I have no evidence that there even exists such a thing as a Seventh Dimension etc.
    - 7y ago

lidHanteyk 7y ago

In no particular order: * Helping a googleplex of people immediately vs over a period of time are two different complexities of action. * Recall that hypotheses are selected from an ambient pool of possibilities. Then we might imagine that some hypotheses dominate others, so that regardless of how much evidence is offered, we always insist that the evidence supports a simpler alternative. To wit: "Well, if I'm not a Matrix Lord, then how do you explain my amazing powers?" asks the Mugger. "Street magic," you say. "Very impressive sleight of hand. Perhaps some smoke, mirrors, lasers, assistants." * A Matrix Lord asking $5 of a person on the street in order to commit miracles is inherently irrational. If they just wanted $5, or wanted to deprive the person of $5, or wanted to humiliate and embarrass the person, or force them to accept certain philosophical truths, then those all could be achieved via Matrix Lordery. Therefore the Lord in this story is being a pointless dick, and it's silly to expect rational arguments to be part of the conversation. To wit: "Just give yourself $5. Give yourself any reward you like, for helping people; it's not my place to set or fulfill the price of such powerful entities, is it?" you ask. "But...but don't you want the feeling of doing good?" asks the Mugger. "Not really, no," you reply. "I have investments and equity already, and those dollars already have ripples that affect people far beyond my direct control. I don't feel much of anything about those investments. And it would be irrational for me to value a $5 investment more than $5. Really, if you can do all of this good, then you should turn yourself into an exchange-traded fund, and let people buy your time to do good in the world," you muse. "But...but this offer is for you, and you alone," the Mugger insists. "Okay, but why me? Let's talk about the Self-Sampling Assumption!" you say. The Mugger groans.

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
That's a good point: if the Mugger is an Operator from the Fifth Dimension and he has such great magickal powers, why does he need the 10lb in Pascal's wallet? Or, if he does need them, why can't he just get them? Like, we are asked to believe that, given that the Mugger is an Operator from the Seventh Dimension, he has the power to offer 10 quintillion Utils to Pascal, but not the power to just take the 10lb from his wallet. I think the whole paradox can still stand, given that the Mugger can then just offer an amount of Utils that compensates from the much smaller conditional probability of the Mugger being only sorta omnipotent. On the other hand, I think we can easily resolve the paradox by inserting the Crowbar of Cynical Jadedness: If it sounds too good to be true, then its probability of being either good, or true is zero (it can be one or the other with a non-zero probability, but not both). 10 quintillion utils (or however many) sounds too good to be true, so it can't be true. A Used Car Salesman will never offer you a good deal. The Mugger is only lying to get Pascal's money.

joefourier 7y ago

I would agree, that is not enough evidence. Some sort of advanced display technology causing the apparition provides the exact same explainability, and would require no changes to our understanding of the universe and the laws of physics.

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago

Thanks, that's an interesting read. But I don't think it addresses my question: why shouldn't Pascal place the probability that the Mugger is an Operator from the Seventh dimension to _zero_ (rather than an infinitissemally small number)? The point is that, at the time when the Mugger declares himself to be an Operator from the Seventh Dimension who can offer large rewards etc, there is no evidence to suggest he's saying the truth. No evidence at all. Accordingly, the probability that he's telling the truth must be zero. Where does a non-zero probability value come from? Are you then saying that the probability of any reward should never be placed to zero because that would not maximise rewards?

Dylan16807 7y ago
Probability zero is the same as saying that it would take infinite evidence to convince you. Even if someone provides amazingly convincing evidence, better than you've ever seen, a flat 0 or 1 eats it. > there is no evidence to suggest he's saying the truth. No evidence at all. Accordingly, the probability that he's telling the truth must be zero. I don't think that logic works. What if the claim was "I have a five dollar bill in my pocket"?
- YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
  >> Probability zero is the same as saying that it would take infinite evidence to convince you. That assumes I can't go back and change my earlier beliefs. But I don't see why that's necessary. If I have no evidence that X is true at time t, I assing a probability of 0 to it. If I acquire evidence that X is true at time t+1, I throw out the 0 and assign a higher probability to X. The world changes all the time. Why am I condemned to hold on to obviously unsound beliefs for all eternity? >> I don't think that logic works. What if the claim was "I have a five dollar bill in my pocket"? That depends. I've seen five dollar bills coming out of peoples' pockets before (actually, I haven't because dollars are not common where I live but Ok). I don't have to assing a zero probability to that. I have some evidence that it's possible. But I have no evidence that there even exists such a thing as a Seventh Dimension etc.
  - 7y ago