On 20-Mar-01, Wei Dai wrote:
> Suppose the new experiment has two rounds. In each round the > participant will be given temporary amnesia so he can't tell which > round he is in. In round one he will have low measure (1/100 of > normal). In round two he will have normal measure. He is also told: > > If you push button 1, you will lose $9. > If you push button 2 and you are in round 1, you will win $10. > If you push button 2 and you are in round 2, you will lose $10. > > According to anthropic reasoning, the participant when faced with the > choices should think that he is much more likely to be in round 2, and > therefore push button 1 in both rounds, but obviously he would have > been better off pushing button 2 in both rounds. > I don't see any paradox. This is no different than: If you push button 1, you will lose $9. If you push button 2 you will win $10 one time out of 101 at random. The other 100 times out of 101 you will lose $10. If you push 1 your expected payoff is -$9. If you push 2 your expected payoff is ($10*1 - $10*100)/101=-$9/1.01 So you push 2. Where's the paradox? Brent Meeker
