(Due to time constraints I expect I can only give brief replies/âclarifications, going forward. I hope a full read of the sequence will suffice, though I realize itâs quite long, sorry!)
But you donât need to restrict yourself to concerns about the whole future lightcone to run into this problemâat the foundational level this is true of every statement. ⌠I donât see why we should do so with credences (which are of course usually non-foundational statements)
(See my last para for the âfuture lightconeâ thing.)
I donât understand your Munchausen trilemma argument yet. You say credences are âof course usually non-foundationalâ. Agreed! Thatâs exactly why I think our choices of credences require deeper justification. (Whereas foundational things, like Huemerâs âseemingsâ, donât.[1])
forecasting 0.1234567% chance of rain if the extra precision was actually decision-relevant
The extra precision might be âdecision-relevantâ in the sense that: if you were justified in a credence of 0.1234567% + 0.0000001%, you should choose A, and if you were justified in a credence of 0.1234567% â 0.0000001%, you should choose B. But the whole question is why weâd be justified in the former vs. the latter, epistemically. (âI need to make a choiceâ isnât a justification for any particular option you choose.)
Your counterpoint seems to be that in some cases that feel sort-of- equal (and about which, in the cases you describe we actually have a lot of information), we might be inclined to give equal credence.
Thatâs not what Iâm saying, sorry â Iâm denying we should give equal credence. Please see my reply to a similar comment here, and section 3.2.1 and 4.1.1 of the sequence (you might need to CTRL+F some terms defined earlier in the sequence). If itâs still unclear, Iâm happy to try to explain further if you could point to particular passages that need clarification.
The precise EV approach is well evidenced in short-term decision-making
I donât know what exactly this means. If you mean âwe seem to be justified in using precise EVs in short term decision makingâ:
I think our beliefs shouldnât be precise in basically any real-world case, not just beliefs about the far future. (Sec 2.2)
So I think whatâs going on is simply that short term decisions arenât sensitive to the imprecision in the beliefs weâre actually justified in having. The principled difference from the far future case is that in the latter, our decisions are sensitive to the imprecision.
(Due to time constraints I expect I can only give brief replies/âclarifications, going forward. I hope a full read of the sequence will suffice, though I realize itâs quite long, sorry!)
(See my last para for the âfuture lightconeâ thing.)
I donât understand your Munchausen trilemma argument yet. You say credences are âof course usually non-foundationalâ. Agreed! Thatâs exactly why I think our choices of credences require deeper justification. (Whereas foundational things, like Huemerâs âseemingsâ, donât.[1])
The extra precision might be âdecision-relevantâ in the sense that: if you were justified in a credence of 0.1234567% + 0.0000001%, you should choose A, and if you were justified in a credence of 0.1234567% â 0.0000001%, you should choose B. But the whole question is why weâd be justified in the former vs. the latter, epistemically. (âI need to make a choiceâ isnât a justification for any particular option you choose.)
Thatâs not what Iâm saying, sorry â Iâm denying we should give equal credence. Please see my reply to a similar comment here, and section 3.2.1 and 4.1.1 of the sequence (you might need to CTRL+F some terms defined earlier in the sequence). If itâs still unclear, Iâm happy to try to explain further if you could point to particular passages that need clarification.
I donât know what exactly this means. If you mean âwe seem to be justified in using precise EVs in short term decision makingâ:
I think our beliefs shouldnât be precise in basically any real-world case, not just beliefs about the far future. (Sec 2.2)
So I think whatâs going on is simply that short term decisions arenât sensitive to the imprecision in the beliefs weâre actually justified in having. The principled difference from the far future case is that in the latter, our decisions are sensitive to the imprecision.
That is, they donât require deeper justification prima facie. Theyâre still defeasible.