# qvalq

Karma: 41
• kinetic energy scales with the square of the speed

Why is this?

• 5 Oct 2023 3:29 UTC
0 points
0

I probably can’t go to the October meetup, due to coincidence. How do I unRSVP on Meetup?

Unrelated, I still think I have a good chance of making it next time.

• Thank you. I was probably wrong.

In most examples, there’s no common knowledge. In most examples, information is only transmitted one way. This does not allow for Aumann agreement. One side makes one update, then stops.
If someone tells me their assigned probability for something, that turns my probability very close to theirs, if I think they’ve seen nearly strictly better evidence about it than I have. I think this explains most of your examples, without referencing Aumann.

I think I don’t understand what you mean. What’s Aumann agreement? How’s it a useful concept?

• I thought the surprising thing about Aumann agreement was that ideal agents with shared priors will come to agree even if they can’t intentionally exchange information, and can see only the other’s assigned probability. [I checked Wikipedia; with common knowledge of each other’s probabilistic belief about something, ideal agents with shared priors have the same belief. There’s something about dialogues, but Aumann didn’t prove that. I was wrong.]

Your post seems mostly about exchange of information. It doesn’t matter which order you find your evidence, so ideal agents with shared priors that can exchange everything they’ve seen will always come to agree.
I don’t think this requires understanding Aumann’s theorem.

Is this wrong, or otherwise unimportant?

• Thank you for responding.

It’s possible for your team to lose five points, thereby giving the other team five points.
If the other team loses five points, then you gain five points.
Why is it not possible for the other team to lose five points without anything else happening? Where does the asymmetry come from?

It’s
-25 −20 −5 0 20 25.
Why isn’t it
-25 −20 −5 0 5 20 25?

• (-25) lose points and other team gains points

• (-20) other team gains points

• (-5) lose points and other team gets nothing

• (0) nobody gets anything

• (20) gain points

• (25) other team loses points and you gain points

Why no (+5)?

• X is not a thing that can be other things

Y is not actually a thing that another thing can be

Why the “actually”?

• I probably won’t go to this.
I probably will go to the October 21st version. Is there some way I should formally communicate that?

Probably there should be a way to be more specific than “MAYBE”.
Where should I complain these to?

• I no longer think it makes sense to clam up when you can’t figure out how you originally came around to the view which you now hold

Either you can say “I came to this conclusion at some point, and I trust myself”, or you should abandon the belief.

You don’t need to know how or why your brain happened to contain the belief; you just need to know your own justification for believing it now. If you can’t sufficiently justify your belief to yourself (even through things like “My-memory-of-myself-from-a-few-minutes-ago thinks it’s likely” or “First-order intuition thinks it’s likely”), you should abandon it (unless you’re bad at this, which is probably not the case for most people who might try it).

From my perspective, I just had an original thought. If there’s any writing about something related, or if someone else has something to add or subtract, I would probably very much like to read it.

• One-box only occurs in simulations, while two-box occurs in and out of simulations.

If I one-box in simulations, then Omega puts \$0 in the first box, and I can’t one-box.

If I two-box in simulations, then Omega puts \$100 in the first box, so I may be in a simulation or not.

One-boxing kills me, so I two-box.

Either I’ve made a mistake, or you have. Where is it?