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.