Also, if you didn’t, the more complex possibilities would tend to contain the simpler ones, which may approach a limit as the number of possibilities considered increases.
Loved that point. Well said and I hadn’t thought of that.
...or you end up behaving exactly as if you were using Bayesian statistics.
Which is what I think they’re doing here. Coming up with some new formulation that may be operating within the realm of Bayes anyway.
If you try to come up with a different method of choosing, you either end up with paradoxes...
I’d be interested in hearing more about this. Can you give an example of a paradox? Do you just mean that if your decision making method is not robust (when creating your own), you may end up with it telling you to both make the bet and not make the bet?
Either you would a) neither be willing to take a bet nor take the opposite bet, b) be willing to take a combination of bets such that you’d necessarily lose, or c) use Bayesian probability.
Loved that point. Well said and I hadn’t thought of that.
Which is what I think they’re doing here. Coming up with some new formulation that may be operating within the realm of Bayes anyway.
I’d be interested in hearing more about this. Can you give an example of a paradox? Do you just mean that if your decision making method is not robust (when creating your own), you may end up with it telling you to both make the bet and not make the bet?
Either you would a) neither be willing to take a bet nor take the opposite bet, b) be willing to take a combination of bets such that you’d necessarily lose, or c) use Bayesian probability.
Thanks for the link and explanation.