[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