The responses to my comment have provided a real object lesson to me about how a rough throwaway remark (in this case: my attempt to very briefly indicate what my other post was about) can badly distract readers from oneās actual point! Perhaps I would have done better to entirely leave out any positive attempt to here describe the content of my other post, and merely offer the negative claim that it wasnāt about asserting specific probabilities.
My brief characterization was not especially well optimized for conveying the complex dialectic in the other post. Nor was it asserting that my conclusion was logically unassailable. I keep saying that if anyone wants to engage with my old post, Iād prefer that they did so in the comments to that postāensuring that they engage with the real post rather than the inadequate summary I gave here. My ultra-brief summary is not an adequate substitute, and was never intended to be engaged with as such.
On the substantive point: Of course, ideally one would like to be able to āmodel the entire space of possibilitiesā. But as finite creatures, we need heuristics. If you think my other post was offering a bad heuristic for approximating EV, Iām happy to discuss that more over there.
I think you have be underestimating to what extent the responses you are getting do speak to the core content of your post, but I will leave a comment there to go into it more.
The responses to my comment have provided a real object lesson to me about how a rough throwaway remark (in this case: my attempt to very briefly indicate what my other post was about) can badly distract readers from oneās actual point! Perhaps I would have done better to entirely leave out any positive attempt to here describe the content of my other post, and merely offer the negative claim that it wasnāt about asserting specific probabilities.
My brief characterization was not especially well optimized for conveying the complex dialectic in the other post. Nor was it asserting that my conclusion was logically unassailable. I keep saying that if anyone wants to engage with my old post, Iād prefer that they did so in the comments to that postāensuring that they engage with the real post rather than the inadequate summary I gave here. My ultra-brief summary is not an adequate substitute, and was never intended to be engaged with as such.
On the substantive point: Of course, ideally one would like to be able to āmodel the entire space of possibilitiesā. But as finite creatures, we need heuristics. If you think my other post was offering a bad heuristic for approximating EV, Iām happy to discuss that more over there.
I think you have be underestimating to what extent the responses you are getting do speak to the core content of your post, but I will leave a comment there to go into it more.