[FoRK] That's a bunch of Malarkey

Gregory Alan Bolcer greg at bolcer.org
Mon Jan 19 07:46:57 PST 2015


Don't be silly.  You are confusing the game theoretic soundness of 
Pascal's wager with some other project, attribution, or experiment.

If you have an infinite payout in one quadrant, the game theoretic 
conclusion obeys all logic and scientific assumptions.   To deny that is 
to deny logic.

You are free to challenge the assumptions and make your own payoff 
matrix, but you can't change someone else's definition.  Go ahead and 
change the labels, but tell me what the dominant strategy is for any 
payoff matrix with similar payoffs.  If you don't end up with the same 
solution then your math's is off.

One question though, I think your calculations for "an infinite amount 
of time" are a little off.  Assuming there exists at least one human in 
each (in your words) "arbitrary life-long adherence requirements" and 
human life is not infinite, then wouldn't that number be bounded and 
finite?

Greg

On 1/18/2015 1:23 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
> Still stands for flawed logic?
>
> There are an infinite number of things that we have no evidence for that
> could be true.  Adequately preparing for each of their arbitrary
> life-long adherence requirements would take an infinite amount of time
> and effort.  Not likely to work out well.  Highly likely to be a waste
> of time, effort, and resources.  Infinite noise.
>
> I can only get behind the FSM, all others will have to wait for the next
> life.
>
> sdw
>
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>

-- 
greg at bolcer.org, http://bolcer.org, c: +1.714.928.5476


More information about the FoRK mailing list