4 ms·
1. non-ergodicity not ergocitity. "everyone would make the same decision?" No, in fact it explains why rational actors make different decisions when faced with
by ReflectedImage 6y ago
1. non-ergodicity not ergocitity. "everyone would make the same decision?" No, in fact it explains why rational actors make different decisions when faced with the same rewards and risk.
2. You clearly don't understand it. Ole Peters is claiming that the ergodicity assumption is wrong and purposing a non-ergodicity version of economics to fix it.
3. "expected utility theory implicitly assumes that individuals can interact with copies of themselves, effectively in parallel universes" is completely correct. EUT implies that is true as one of it's implicit assumptions.
4. Which raises the question of why has no one but Ole Peters has come up with a new theory to fix the violations? It's poor show by the field of economics. Our theories don't work, let's just sit on our broken theories.
Given Ole Peters work is mathematically correct and shows EUT to be mathematically incorrect. It's pretty pointless calling him a "crackpot". There is an objective right answer here and Ole Peters has that right answer.
- kgwgk 6y agoWhat do you mean by EUT? A reference to the paper or textbook that you learnt it from, for example, would suffice. Even better if you can point to the specific place where there is something mathematically incorrect and/or an implicit assumption of individuals interacting with copies of themselves in parallel universes.