3 ms·

"Would a person ever prefer a process [A] that, after three rounds, diminishes wealth from US$10,000 to 0.5 cents over one [B] that yields a 99.9% chance of US$

"Would a person ever prefer a process [A] that, after three rounds, diminishes wealth from US$10,000 to 0.5 cents over one [B] that yields a 99.9% chance of US$10,000,000 and otherwise US$0? Ergodic theory predicts [A] [... but] [v]irtually everyone will prefer B" The answer is that the person prefers A not B. The physical interpretation of that is that you have a 99.9% chance of getting $10,000,000 and 0.01% of being killed where you stand. People naturally avoid sudden losses of resources as it usually means death. [If you want me to explain to you, why it's totally irrational to choose B, I'm happy to do so] You are using maths without understanding what that maths actually means. You could argue that you should be calculating the effect of making a decision a very large number of times rather than infinity times. But that would be a minor tiny issue rather than a reasonable refute. I have read the paper of refutes and they are no good. @sweezykeezy At the end of the day, Ergodicity Economics is a revolutionary idea for economics and like with most revolutionary ideas it has a lot of people who don't want the status quo to be upset. In this case an outside's unbias opinion is more valid than an insider's heavy bias opinion. The other incredibility telling thing is that all the detractors can't agree on what actually their disagreement is with Ole Peters work. They can't attack the maths, they can't attack that it applies to the real world, so they are all over the place. "Nobel prize IN PHYSICS" I think there is a big hint here that Economics is in the scientific dark ages where people are more interested in advancing their pet theories then are actually concerned about the real world or what is correct. If economics didn't want people from other fields coming in, then they shouldn't of let their field fall into a state of disrepair. In your next reply to this, explain to me what an ensemble average and an time average are and why they are different. At least show me you understand at least a little of what you are talking about. There are certainly no comments on this article that successfully refute Ole Peters, I have read them all.

sweezyjeezy 6y ago
What I was really interested in talking about was how you're displaying a lack of humility in a field that you aren't an expert in - https://xkcd.com/793/ https://xkcd.com/793/ to quote a previous poster. Time will tell whether you are right or not, not us arguing on HN.
- ReflectedImage 6y ago
  I've been trained in interdisciplinary research. As part of the training, common issues in problem research fields were covered. The economists here are behaving actually how researchers from problem search fields typically behave. One typically problem behaviour is argument by example, two different research groups have their own theory and then they use research papers and more recently social media to send each other ridicious examples of where their theory works and the other research group's does not. An example of argument by example is: "Would a person ever prefer a process [A] that, after three rounds, diminishes wealth from US$10,000 to 0.5 cents over one [B] that yields a 99.9% chance of US$10,000,000 and otherwise US$0? Ergodic theory predicts [A] [... but] [v]irtually everyone will prefer B" from the rebuttal paper. Along with all the other ones in the rebuttal paper. That's a telltale sign of poor quality researchers. They didn't even bother spend any time to work out what Ole Peters was even saying and since they didn't know what Ole Peters was saying, they failed to refute it. Good researchers, who's opinions are worth listening to, don't behave in that manner.

sweezyjeezy 6y ago

What I was really interested in talking about was how you're displaying a lack of humility in a field that you aren't an expert in - https://xkcd.com/793/ https://xkcd.com/793/ to quote a previous poster. Time will tell whether you are right or not, not us arguing on HN.

ReflectedImage 6y ago
I've been trained in interdisciplinary research. As part of the training, common issues in problem research fields were covered. The economists here are behaving actually how researchers from problem search fields typically behave. One typically problem behaviour is argument by example, two different research groups have their own theory and then they use research papers and more recently social media to send each other ridicious examples of where their theory works and the other research group's does not. An example of argument by example is: "Would a person ever prefer a process [A] that, after three rounds, diminishes wealth from US$10,000 to 0.5 cents over one [B] that yields a 99.9% chance of US$10,000,000 and otherwise US$0? Ergodic theory predicts [A] [... but] [v]irtually everyone will prefer B" from the rebuttal paper. Along with all the other ones in the rebuttal paper. That's a telltale sign of poor quality researchers. They didn't even bother spend any time to work out what Ole Peters was even saying and since they didn't know what Ole Peters was saying, they failed to refute it. Good researchers, who's opinions are worth listening to, don't behave in that manner.