tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post115728166075744170..comments2023-07-06T15:14:57.204+01:00Comments on JOHN'S BLOG: Pascal's WagerJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02487495921222083129noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-1157410112169586182006-09-04T23:48:00.000+01:002006-09-04T23:48:00.000+01:00And here's the link you wanted...Yes, I don't take...And <A HREF="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/heaven.html" REL="nofollow">here's</A> the link you wanted...<BR/><BR/>Yes, I don't take it seriously, but it's sad that they consider the suffering thing sufficient reason for not believing in God.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02487495921222083129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-1157409842384794992006-09-04T23:44:00.000+01:002006-09-04T23:44:00.000+01:00Want me to clean these up AC? Feel free to post a ...Want me to clean these up AC? Feel free to post a "definitive version"...Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02487495921222083129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-1157407460602619062006-09-04T23:04:00.000+01:002006-09-04T23:04:00.000+01:00Final one - next time I will preview my comment be...Final one - next time I will preview my comment before I post!<BR/><BR/>ACAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-1157407354975448892006-09-04T23:02:00.000+01:002006-09-04T23:02:00.000+01:00Ho hum - add 'ard' to to the end of 'rich' and rem...Ho hum - add 'ard' to to the end of 'rich' and remove the space before the underscore.<BR/><BR/>ACAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-1157407251465047082006-09-04T23:00:00.000+01:002006-09-04T23:00:00.000+01:00Argh! So I did post it correctly!I shall try it ag...Argh! So I did post it correctly!<BR/>I shall try it again ...<BR/><BR/>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard _carrier/heaven.html<BR/><BR/>ACAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-1157407167574577722006-09-04T22:59:00.000+01:002006-09-04T22:59:00.000+01:00Oops - I lost part of the link. Apologies:www.infi...Oops - I lost part of the link. Apologies:<BR/><BR/>www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/heaven.html<BR/><BR/>ACAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-1157405083686825822006-09-04T22:24:00.000+01:002006-09-04T22:24:00.000+01:00Whilst browsing I came across this tongue-in-cheek...Whilst browsing I came across this tongue-in-cheek analysis of Pascal's Wager. No doubt you will not consider it serious, Custard, but there is hope for me yet!<BR/><BR/>Quote: 'Therefore only intellectually committed but critical nontheists are genuinely good and will go to heaven.'<BR/><BR/>www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/heaven.html<BR/><BR/>ACAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-1157399756871595732006-09-04T20:55:00.000+01:002006-09-04T20:55:00.000+01:00Of course, when the Hs cancel out, they'll still l...Of course, when the Hs cancel out, they'll still leave their multiplying factors intact.<BR/><BR/>They'll also reduce any terms not containing H - any views which don't include heaven as a possible benefit - as those terms will then have a 1/H multiplier, which will tend to zero.<BR/><BR/>So instead of having, say, inifinity:infinity:1, you might have 2:1:0.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02487495921222083129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-1157399515277826352006-09-04T20:51:00.000+01:002006-09-04T20:51:00.000+01:00Nope - the Hs will cancel out and you'll be left w...Nope - the Hs will cancel out and you'll be left with constants.<BR/><BR/>Whoever wrote that stuff doesn't seem to be very good at coping with big numbers in maths. I'm pretty sure I did it in A-level further maths when we were thinking about limiting values and so on.<BR/><BR/>It also comes up in several areas of physics - most famously in renormalisation.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02487495921222083129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-1157396097420045332006-09-04T19:54:00.000+01:002006-09-04T19:54:00.000+01:00But surely as H tends to infinity the difference b...But surely as <B>H</B> tends to infinity the difference between the expected utilities of the actions tends to zero?<BR/><BR/>Have a look at this article, which is the source of my ideas. It's written by Alan Hajek, who has studied statistics, maths, and philosophy:<BR/><A>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/#5</A>Daniel Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07823511443088751096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-1157394334099700592006-09-04T19:25:00.000+01:002006-09-04T19:25:00.000+01:00Conceptual steps: 1) Write value that will end up ...Conceptual steps: 1) Write value that will end up big as <B>H</B>.<BR/>2) Sum all expected values for all actions. Call this sum Z.<BR/>3) Divide each expected value by Z (or a fraction of Z).<BR/>4) Then let H tend to infinity and take the limiting value of (expected outcome)/Z for each expression. They'll all be finite.<BR/><BR/><I>Alternatively, just write it in terms of H. 0.5H > 0.3H for allJohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02487495921222083129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-1157391483218207602006-09-04T18:38:00.000+01:002006-09-04T18:38:00.000+01:00I don't know what 'renormalisation' means, I'm afr...I don't know what 'renormalisation' means, I'm afraid, Custard, though Wikipedia says that it is a tool used in quantum theory. The method of letting <B>H</B> tend to infinity rather than merely be infinite won't work because it will equally tend to infinity for every action.Daniel Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07823511443088751096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-1157390097010150082006-09-04T18:14:00.000+01:002006-09-04T18:14:00.000+01:00AC - If you can find a sensible way of applying ma...AC - If you can find a sensible way of applying mathematics to metaphysics which ends up with atheism coming out ahead of Christianity, I'd be very interested.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02487495921222083129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-1157390027175900212006-09-04T18:13:00.000+01:002006-09-04T18:13:00.000+01:00Sorry Daniel - I thought I'd dealt with that on my...Sorry Daniel - I thought I'd dealt with that on my comment regarding (re)normalisation.<BR/><BR/>Could you explain why the method I suggested wouldn't work?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02487495921222083129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-1157386258924202512006-09-04T17:10:00.000+01:002006-09-04T17:10:00.000+01:00`If God exists, hasn't revealed anything to us, an...`If God exists, hasn't revealed anything to us, and has a set of completely arbitrary and unrevealed criteria for admission to heaven, then we could count that as a seperate "religion", which would just add the same amount onto everyone's expected outcome as everyone would have an equal chance.'<BR/>The point that I was making was that for every action there is a non-zero (epistemic) chance that Daniel Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07823511443088751096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-1157376070472525002006-09-04T14:21:00.000+01:002006-09-04T14:21:00.000+01:00I would argue that there are an infinite number of...I would argue that there are an infinite number of 'potential' religions completely different from each other and variations on those currently acknowledged, though I will concede that there is merit in lumping sections of the latter into distinct groups. Again it comes back to what one is willing to accept as a religion.<BR/><BR/>I find mathematical analysis of metaphysical issues deeply Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-1157372796427654892006-09-04T13:26:00.000+01:002006-09-04T13:26:00.000+01:00Useful point about the infinite religions, AC - I'...Useful point about the infinite religions, AC - I'd forgotten that one.<BR/><BR/>I think there are two ways round it, depending on exactly what you mean.<BR/><BR/>If you mean that there are potentially infinite slight variations on Christianity, for example, then you can just treat the different views as grouped data with grouped probabilities in the same way that you would, for example, with a Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02487495921222083129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-1157321137566116322006-09-03T23:05:00.000+01:002006-09-03T23:05:00.000+01:00For the second time I typed out a reply to one of ...For the second time I typed out a reply to one of your posts, only to lose it via a 'page expiry' warning! I shall attempt to type it out from memory.<BR/><BR/>Congratualtions, Custard on an excellent post. Had me thinking for a time, and I finally understand where the term pH comes from ;)<BR/><BR/>As to your analysis of the three main criticisms of Pascal's Wager:<BR/><BR/>point 1 - I don't Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-1157316652418729622006-09-03T21:50:00.000+01:002006-09-03T21:50:00.000+01:00Ah yes - the infinity problem.I deal with it by ju...Ah yes - the infinity problem.<BR/><BR/>I deal with it by just calling it <B>H</B>, then letting <B>H</B> tend to infinity. Problems of multiple infinities can then be allowed to vanish by renormalisation.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02487495921222083129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-1157291988135117032006-09-03T14:59:00.000+01:002006-09-03T14:59:00.000+01:00I've been discussing this a lot with a non-Christi...I've been discussing this a lot with a non-Christian friend. One has to remember that we have to discuss <B>actions</B> rather than doctrines or beliefs. This is because doctrines don't have expected utilities, and beliefs aren't under our (direct) control. Pascal considers actions such as going to church, which seems reasonable enough. The problem is that if the potential gain is <B>infinite</B>Daniel Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07823511443088751096noreply@blogger.com