4 ms·
I agree. This problem is still useful though, because to analyse a lot of counterfactual muggers, you must be able to analyse one mugger!
by adamchalmers 7y ago
I agree. This problem is still useful though, because to analyse a lot of counterfactual muggers, you must be able to analyse one mugger!
- MaxBarraclough 7y agoI agree that both problems are worth analysing, even if they're both absurd. Same goes for the Hangman's Paradox, a personal favourite. [0] I gather that Pascal had never intended Pascal's Wager to be a watertight argument, it was intended more as a plaything for showing how unlikely it was anyone could make a watertight case for the existence of God. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangman%27s_Paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangman%27s_Paradox