Off – Pascal’s estimate might be farther off than the offered benefit, and how does he know how far to compensate?
Counter – there is a (smaller) probability that the man will give you the same amount of Utility only if you refuse. (Also a probability that will give way more Utility if refuse, but probably countered by probability that will give way more if accept.)
As shown by the “smaller”, I don’t think this argument completely explains the problem.
Known – the gambit is known, so that makes it more likely that he is tricking you – but sadly, no effect, I think.
Impossible – [My Dad]’s suspect argument: there is absolutely zero probability of the mugger giving you what he promises. There is no way to both extend someone’s lifespan and make them happy during it.
He could just take you out of the Matrix into a place where any obstacles to lengthy happiness are removed. There’s still a probability of that, right?
God – maybe level of probability involved is similar to that of God’s existence, with infinite heaven affecting the decision
Long-term – maybe what we should do in a one-shot event is different from what we should do if we repeated that event many times.
Assumption – one of the stated assumptions, such as utilitarianism or risk-neutrality, is incorrect and should not actually be held.
My unfinished outline-form notes on solving Pascal’s Mugging:
Pascal’s Mugger (http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/pascal.pdf) possible solutions
Off – Pascal’s estimate might be farther off than the offered benefit, and how does he know how far to compensate?
Counter – there is a (smaller) probability that the man will give you the same amount of Utility only if you refuse. (Also a probability that will give way more Utility if refuse, but probably countered by probability that will give way more if accept.)
This seems to be Eliezer’s view, mentioned in Overcoming Bias – The Pascal’s Wager Fallacy Fallacy
As shown by the “smaller”, I don’t think this argument completely explains the problem.
Known – the gambit is known, so that makes it more likely that he is tricking you – but sadly, no effect, I think.
Impossible – [My Dad]’s suspect argument: there is absolutely zero probability of the mugger giving you what he promises. There is no way to both extend someone’s lifespan and make them happy during it.
He could just take you out of the Matrix into a place where any obstacles to lengthy happiness are removed. There’s still a probability of that, right?
God – maybe level of probability involved is similar to that of God’s existence, with infinite heaven affecting the decision
Long-term – maybe what we should do in a one-shot event is different from what we should do if we repeated that event many times.
Assumption – one of the stated assumptions, such as utilitarianism or risk-neutrality, is incorrect and should not actually be held.