Re: another paradox and a solution

From: Wei Dai <weidai.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 13:07:36 -0800

On Tue, Feb 24, 1998 at 10:19:44AM -0800, Hal Finney wrote:
> I understand that if you use your revised definitions to calculate
> probabilities, and compute expected outcomes based on these probabilities,
> then it is unwise to take the bet.
>
> However it still seems to me that in the real world, people will take
> the bet, suggesting that this probability definition is not practically
> useful.
>
> Consider a population of experimenters, some of whom take the bet and
> some who don't. Of those who survive, those who took the bet will
> have more money. Over time, this should spread the belief, the "meme",
> that taking the bet is a good thing. Those who adopt this meme will have
> more success than those who don't.

I disagree. People would see that all of the experimenters who refused
the bet got to spend $2, but only half of the experimenters who accepted
the bet got to spend $3. So people would imitate the ones who refused.

Or, suppose there is a gene for refusing and another one for accepting.
Everyone with the "refuse" gene invests $2 in their offspring, and half of
those with the "accept" gene invests $3 in their offspring. Clearly the
"refuse" gene will spread.

Let me give another example where maybe my case is clearer. Suppose the
experimenter is about to be duplicated tonight in her sleep. Her
assistant offers her a deal: he gives her $2 now, in return for $3 from
the original (but not the clone) tomorrow. Intuitively, and according to
the definition of probabiIity I propose, she should refuse. But according
to the definition of Tegmark, she should accept because she would have
only probability 0.5 of losing $3 tomorrow.
Received on Tue Feb 24 1998 - 13:08:43 PST