Pascal's Wager

Pascal was this famous French Math and Logic guy. One of the things he was famous for was thinking up this idea about God:

Either God exists or He does not exist. Either you believe God exists or you don't believe God exists. That makes four possibilities.

A. God exists and I believe He does. B. God does not exist and I believe He does. C. God does not exist and I don't believe He does. D. God exists and I don't believe He does.

In classic logic theory, you would express that like this: God exists A D God does not exist B C I believe God exists I do not believe God exists

Now the question is: What is the Expected Outcome of each of those Logic Squares?

Well, if A, God exists and I believe God exists, then you behave accordingly, go to Heaven and everything's Hunky Dory.

If B, God does not exist and you believe God exists, then you still behave as if God did exist, and you end up living a good life on Earth.

If C, God does not exist and you do not believe God exists, then it's an overall sad situation and you live however you decide to live and then you die.

If D, God exists and you do not believe God exists, you got a problem.

So the Risk Assessment chart looks like this:

God exists A.

You live a good life and go to Heaven. D.

You are in some serious Deep Yogurt. God does not exist B.

You live a good life.

C.

You live a life in whatever manner you choose, could be good, could be twinged with despair. I believe God exists I do not believe God exists

So Mathematically speaking, if you believe God exists, you end up with a good outcome, whether you were right about that or not. This kind of chart is used to build Logic Circuits in computers. In this circuit, you would get Current on A and B, but not on C and D.

But if you do NOT believe God exists, you better be right. So if the question is uncertain, you are best served to err on the side of believing because that is the choice for which the outcome is acceptable even if you are wrong.

This is mathematical decision-making in the face of uncertainty.

Now Logic doesn't tell you WHAT to believe about God, and Logic doesn't prove God exists. It only tells you it is RATIONAL to believe in God, because the Risk Assessment of not believing is too high. In the case where something cannot be proven, err on the side of Faith, because if you believe, there's no downside to being wrong.

This is the same with the Y2K problem. No one can prove anything will happen. No one can disprove anything will happen. It is entirely uncertain.

But it is easy to prove the problem exists, because no one argues that the two-digit year was used in all computer programs, and no one argues that this is an important difficulty.

Most critically, no one argues that the problem has been fixed.

The arguments FOR believing there will not be a Y2K problem center around Faith that it won't matter and Faith that it WILL be fixed, although it hasn't been fixed YET.

So the people who say "There is not going to be a Y2K problem in the critical infrastructure" are actually making a religious argument. Because there's definitely no physics to back that argument up. (The "proof" offered that Y2K is "well on its way to being fixed" consists of surveys of how many organizations are spending money on it.)Now to my way of thinking, the fact that money is being spent on it proves it's a valid problem, but it carries no information regarding the fruitfulness of the costly repair effort. Forty years of software development history proves you can't make a baby in one month by putting nine women to work on it. The fact that there is no one standing up and saying, "I'm done. Want to buy my solution?" Is a far more revealing datapoint than a survey of who's working hard.

So with Y2K, we have a Faith issue similar to the Logic Question of the belief in God. Y2K either WILL bring down the infrastructure or it will not, and you will either prepare for it to do that or you won't.

Here's how Pascal's Wager works out for Y2K.

A. Y2K will strike and I will be prepared. B. Y2K will not strike and I will be prepared. C. Y2K will not strike and I will not be prepared. D. Y2K will strike and I will not be prepared.

Y2K strikes A D Y2K does not strike B C I prepared for it I did not prepare for it.

The outcome of this Risk Assessment is similar to the Faith in God chart.

If A: Y2K strikes and I am prepared, life is tough but life goes on.

If B: Y2K does not strike and I am prepared, then I have new skills and knowledges and I'm prepared for the next emergency. I've purchased an insurance policy.

If C: Y2K does not strike and I did not prepare, then nothing happens.

If D: Y2K strikes and I did not prepare, then I get to sleep in the local armory and stand in line at the water distribution center and cling to my Faith in the Government that told me this was not going to happen.

If there is only a Four Percent chance that Y2K will strike, that's a bigger chance than there is that you'll need any of the other insurances you pay for every month. You can be 96 percent sure that nothing will happen, and still be acting rationally to prepare for it.

Again, if you choose not to prepare, you MUST be right. (If you would like to assess the mathematical probability of whether or not Y2K will hit, click here.)

If you choose to prepare, there's no downside to being wrong. Ahhh, but that's where I made the Logic Error, didn't I? There is a Downside to preparing and being wrong. First, it takes time and money away from other priorities. Second, if everyone prepared there would be a strain on the system that would break the system.

Now if Y2K strikes, there were no more important priorities. So what priorities did it take time and money away from in the Land of No Electricity? None. But the second point, that if everyone prepared there would be a strain that would break the system. That's the important point. You see, it's good for ME to prepare, but I better not tell YOU, because if the word gets out, there will be a Toilet Paper Shortage from everybody hoarding it.

And that's the Point.

Even I didn't put up this website until I bought everything I needed.

So don't rush out and try to prepare NOW. It's too late. There's not enough play in the system for EVERYBODY to get prepared.

Isn't it just terribly fortunate that MOST PEOPLE refuse to believe it so they're not acting rationally and realizing the LOGIC says you don't have to believe Y2K will happen to prepare for it?

It's an unacceptable outcome, Folks. You MUST prepare for Y2K whether you believe it will happen or not. Because it's something which absolutely nobody knows the answer to. It is a pure decision in the face of complete uncertainty. If you prepare, then you Win if it does happen, and you win if it doesn't happen. You don't have to be right. But if you fail to prepare, then the consequence of being wrong . . .

Is Fatal.

-- Rod (rspain@webcombo.net), December 13, 1999

Answers

Appreciate the post Rod.

Except we really needed this posted LAST December.

Might have made a small difference in many lives.

We're a little too late for society at-large.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), December 13, 1999.

I agree wholeheartedly but the last time I checked Sams still had tons of rice and beans as well as pallets of canned goods. One or two Rip Van Winkles may wake up from their long winters nap and realize they just might die next month and go get some grub and water. Who knows...its worth a try to save a few!

-- Rod (rspain@webcombo.net), December 13, 1999.

Good Morning Rod. INVAR is right,I really wish I had had this a while back.But you do have the honor of your post being the very last Y2K article that goes into my employee's pay envelope this Fri.17th. Most of staff are GI or SGI, but I've been giving out info in paychecks for months.I had info for everyone for over a year,but it wasn't until I made it envelope stuffers that I KNEW they would all have the info whether they wanted it or not. Yours is the last,but not least,of what I've been trying to get across all along.Many Thanks,and All the Best

-- Walter (on de rock@northrock.bm), December 13, 1999.

Sort of sounds like the argument for getting fire insurance on your home, only God is the fire that may or may not happen, and belief is the insurance, that is within your power to purchase or not.

Says a lot for religion, doesn't it? It's so inspiring to put your life energy into avoiding a feared outcome!

But then that's why mystics like St. Francis, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross were such nuisances to their "superiors": that uncynical enthusiasm!

And Buddhists! They didn't even start with something to be afraid of! Life was suffering enough, already: Let's work on it.

Hey! Let me be the first to wish you a Happy Y2K!

-- jor-el (jor-el@krypton.uni), December 13, 1999.

Excellent analogy but I really don't think it would have made any difference as to the time frame of posting. Human nature is to put off till tomorrow what you could have done today. I am an expert at that procrastination thing. Also human nature dictates that you doubt anything bad will happen to you! It is always someone elses unfortunate luck. Then there are those that lived up to every penny of the money they made. On Dateline or one of those magazine shows a year or two ago they did a study of how most of us live. Their findings was from paycheck to paycheck. Considering that they would probably not risk what they have to buy preps. Most of the credit they have accumulated is already maxed out or close to it. They concluded that two months without a job could be and would be quite devistating. So those who prepared were the few that looked at the situation very seriously and came to the conclusion that the risk of using any moneies in savings or remaining credit or the sugar bowl for the rainy day was worth it.

-- Susan Barrett (sue59@bellsouth.net), December 13, 1999.

Fine analogy to y2k, but actually the original Pascal's Wage works better for y2k than for religion itself! The reason is that the PW, when applied to 'God' is too simple. You see, every religion and denomination has it own, parochial interpretation of God. You must fit the particulars of these specifications to avoid Hell, according to all established religions.

Thus, a generalized belief in 'God' isn't going to spare you the wrath of the various doctrinal systems. In Christianity for example, trying to err on the right side of the PW could make you simply an 'anonymous Christian' not good enough, by various doctrine, to avoid the lake of fire.

Thus, rather than simple binary formulation 'God or Not God', it is a choice of 1 from among N competing, and mutually exclusive definitions/doctrines of God. To choose the wrong formulation is in many cases regarded as worse (by God, according to his earthly partisans) than not to believe at all!

-- Count Vronsky (vronsky@anna.lit), December 13, 1999.

GI's are people who put off procrastinating to a later time.

-- ivan (ivan1776@ivnet.net), December 13, 1999.

Pascal's original context was not merely one of "God or no God", but rather the person of Jesus Christ. I just posted the following in the other Pascal thread (below), but since 'tis the season to be jolly, I'll reindulge:

If I have evolved solely from eons of random molecular collisions . . then I must admit that my life, the people I touch, my thoughts and emotions, and even love itself . . are of no greater significance than the random motion of hydrogen in deep space.

A desert traveller happening upon an acre of sand upon which is inscribed the entire text of the King James Bible would likewise conclude its author to be the random wind.

I, for one, choose to stick my head in the sand upon being presented with the atheists' ultimate conclusion - it's just too dreary for my old bones.

Blaise Pascal, on the other hand, a man who is generally accredited as being one of the greatest intellects in history, had a somewhat brighter and warmer prospect (which starts out rather cold and dreary).

Pascal said,

There is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of every man that cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God the Creator, made known through Jesus Christ.

So, I took Pascal up on his wager. It was not without considerable squirming, I assure you.

Being a big Trekkie, I wondered how Spock might look at the question (as though Pascal did not prove his point beyond all reasonable doubt). CS Lewis summed up Spock's would-be analysis rather nicely, in my opinion:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him (Jesus Christ): 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us.

But, in perspective, Y2K boasts nowhere near the stakes of eternity. But, if you have kids, you may be getting warm.

Merry Christmas, everyone. Hope this helps.

-- Zach Anderson (z@figure.8m.com), December 13, 1999.

Invar.. actually this idea was out a year or so ago. The Y2K Newswire Risk Matrix. Apparently no longer available, but here's the link, just in case it is only temporarily not working for me: http://www.y2knewswir e.com/riskmatrix.htm

Boils down to "The question is, are you feeling lucky, punk? Well... are you?"

Ivan... I LOVE this [Andy.. add it to your quotes list!]

GI's are people who put off procrastinating to a later time.

-- ivan (ivan1776@ivnet.net), December 13, 1999.

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), December 13, 1999.

You have to notice that you are slipping an INFINITY sign into that wager. It isn't considered kosher to try to balance an infinity against anything except another infinity of a different order. Pascal's Wager is considered logically silly by everyone except people who are trying to make religous converts.

Look, say you decide death is an infinitly bad outcome. Then ANYTHING that involves a possibility of death becomes something to be avoided at all costs. Since everything involves a possibility of death as an outcome, you can't do anything. You can't even lie in bed, many people die in bed.

Besides that, on/off either/or logic works best for computer circuits. There are very few real world problems that actually reduce themselves to Aristotlean logic, as Korzysbki pointed out in the 30's.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), December 15, 1999.

Pascals Wager was discussed on this forum more than once last year.......but not to this degree.

-- rb (ronbanks_2000@yahoo.com), December 15, 1999.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
BTW: Probably half you religious wackos haven't even heard that question before, or what it refers to.

-- A (A@AisA.com), December 15, 1999.