Looking at the original ‘Allais Paradox’ post—under what theorem is the reduction of uncertainty by 100% equivalent to the reduction of uncertainty by 1/67th?
It takes energy to plan ahead—the energy required to plan ahead with 100% certainty of outcome is considerably more than the energy required to plan ahead with 99% certainty. But there’s no such difference in energy consumption planning between the possibilities inherent in 67% and 66% - those are functionally equivalent.
So, um, why is this result even slightly surprising?
Edit: - Now, what would be interesting would be the question of the decisions made if the options are $24K with 94% probability to $27K with 93% probability, and variants thereof where the reduction in uncertainty exactly balances out the increase in value.
Looking at the original ‘Allais Paradox’ post—under what theorem is the reduction of uncertainty by 100% equivalent to the reduction of uncertainty by 1/67th?
It takes energy to plan ahead—the energy required to plan ahead with 100% certainty of outcome is considerably more than the energy required to plan ahead with 99% certainty. But there’s no such difference in energy consumption planning between the possibilities inherent in 67% and 66% - those are functionally equivalent.
So, um, why is this result even slightly surprising?
Edit: - Now, what would be interesting would be the question of the decisions made if the options are $24K with 94% probability to $27K with 93% probability, and variants thereof where the reduction in uncertainty exactly balances out the increase in value.