Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by MaxBarraclough 2407 days ago
Pascal's Wager fails for the simpler reason that it ignores the possibility that believing in god could send you to hell.

I see a similar problem here. Pascal should consider the possibility that the mugger will use his (Pascal's) silly action as the basis for punishment, in place of the promised reward. Slim probability, potentially very high cost. The fact that this risk has gone unstated doesn't mean it isn't there.
1 comments
adamchalmers 2407 days 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!
link
MaxBarraclough 2407 days ago
I 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

link