steven0461 comments on St. Petersburg Mugging Implies You Have Bounded Utility - Less Wrong

10 Post author: TimFreeman 07 June 2011 03:06PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (163)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: handoflixue 08 June 2011 03:45:05AM 0 points [-]

magfrump seems to have nailed it. I find it interesting how controversial that one has been :)

For infinite sums, basically, if the sum is infinite, then any finite probability gives it infinite expected utility (infinity * [1/N] = infinity). If both the sum and probability are finite, then one can argue the details (N * [1/N^2] < 1). The math is different between an arbitrarily large finite and an infinite. Or, at least, I've always assumed Pascal's Wager relied on that, because otherwise I don't see how it produces an infinite expected utility regardless of scepticism.

Comment author: Benquo 08 June 2011 04:20:29AM 0 points [-]

If the utility can be arbitrarily large depending on N, then an arbitrarily large finite skepticism discount can be overcome by considering a sufficiently large N.

Of course a skepticism discount factor that scales with N might be enough to obviate Pascal's Wager.