From: Byrne Hobart (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Aug 29 2007 - 12:04:12 MDT
> This too doesn't seem to be well-resolved. Say, there are two possible
> futures. Is it better to have mediocre results in both cases than to
> have a great result in one case and slightly worse result in another?
> Or equivalently: is it better to gamble under zero-sum conditions or
> not to?
But one constraint is that the more unusual a future result, the more
we should question it (all else being equal).
This usually applies if you're expected to pay some cost for the
future benefit (a free $5 is more likely than a free $5 million) and
the expected future is the result of someone else's analysis, not your
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:58 MDT