Some commenters in the link address your claim #1 that it is equally probable for the mugger to be telling the truth and lying. [Why would we give even a small

Some commenters in the link address your claim #1 that it is equally probable for the mugger to be telling the truth and lying. [Why would we give even a small probability of the mugger going what he says?] “Because he said so, and people tend to be true to their word more often then dictated by chance.” – http://lesswrong.com/lw/kd/pascals_mugging_tiny_probabilities_of_vast/2t7o http://lesswrong.com/lw/kd/pascals_mugging_tiny_probabilitie... [But the mugger isn‘t human, so our experience in proportions of truth-telling is irrelevant.] “They claim to not be a human. They're still a person, in the sense of a sapient being. As a larger class, you'd expect lower correlation, but it would still be above zero.” – http://lesswrong.com/lw/kd/pascals_mugging_tiny_probabilities_of_vast/4o1w http://lesswrong.com/lw/kd/pascals_mugging_tiny_probabilitie... As for your claim #2, “There's no such thing as a 4 trillion trillion positive outcome”, indeed there isn’t – I can’t imagine what that would mean – but I see no mention of “[number] positive outcome” in the link. The link just says the mugger will “run a Turing machine that simulates and kills 3^^^^3 people.” What part of the link that you think is impossible did you paraphrase into “positive outcome”?