As a note, it’s only ever the case that something is good “in expectation” from a particular person’s point of view or from a particular epistemic state. It’s possible for someone to disagree with me because they know different facts about the world, and so for instance think that different futures are more or less likely.
In other words, the expected value referred to by the term “expectation” is subtly an expected value conditioned on a particular set of beliefs.
As a sanity check, do you understand what it means, from a Bayesian perspective, for a one-off bet to be a “good deal” in expectation? If so, can you explain it in your own words?
(just wanted to quickly check if the issue is more with big futures specifically, or with Bayesian reasoning in general).
I don’t think they can answer your question, at least with the stipulation of coming from the “Bayesian perspective”. I think that the meaning of that stipulation is the thing they are unsure about.
I think you calculate expected value the same in any case, frequentist or Bayesian, it’s just the probabilities multiplied by the values?
I think Bayesian thinking involves constructing or updating the probabilities or underlying beliefs or parameters for them?
As a note, it’s only ever the case that something is good “in expectation” from a particular person’s point of view or from a particular epistemic state. It’s possible for someone to disagree with me because they know different facts about the world, and so for instance think that different futures are more or less likely.
In other words, the expected value referred to by the term “expectation” is subtly an expected value conditioned on a particular set of beliefs.
As a sanity check, do you understand what it means, from a Bayesian perspective, for a one-off bet to be a “good deal” in expectation? If so, can you explain it in your own words?
(just wanted to quickly check if the issue is more with big futures specifically, or with Bayesian reasoning in general).
I don’t think they can answer your question, at least with the stipulation of coming from the “Bayesian perspective”. I think that the meaning of that stipulation is the thing they are unsure about.
I think you calculate expected value the same in any case, frequentist or Bayesian, it’s just the probabilities multiplied by the values?
I think Bayesian thinking involves constructing or updating the probabilities or underlying beliefs or parameters for them?
“probabilities” have a different meaning to the average Bayesian than the average frequentist, I think.