Backgammon, Pascal, Sklanskyanity

[David Sklansky]

There is actually a connection between those three subjects.

Pascal's wager, I believe, is basically the idea that you should believe in the Christian God because even if there is only a small chance that he exists, you are getting essentially "infinite odds" since it will get you into heaven. Flaws in this idea include the fact that other religions might believe that such a belief guarantees that you DON'T get into heaven (since you are blasphemous) and the concept that if your belief is based on Pascal's argument, you don't truly believe. You can't make yourself believe if you don't.

But there is a somewhat altered version of Pascal's wager (The Sklansky-Pascal Wager) that doesn't have these flaws. The idea comes up all the time if you play bridge or backgammon. In those games you are frequently faced with situations where you cannot possibly win UNLESS something else is true. That something else may be quite unlikely. Your opponent will throw double sixes on his next roll. East is holding no spade. But those facts alone are not enough to win. It is also necessary that you play the situation correctly. Which means play the UNDER THE ASSUMPTION that he will roll double sixes or that East has no spade.

If you don't play that strategy you have no chance at all. However that doesn't mean that you should somehow persuade yourself that your assumptions are likely to be correct. It does no good to be inaccurate with your probability assessments if it flies in the face of evidence and math. Play optimistally while realizing that you were lucky if things turn out OK.

When I defined the basics of Sklanskyanity I mentioned that God wants his conscious evolved creations to "be happy". (Of course that was an oversimplification. I really should have said that he was concerned with their overall well being as a group.) Someone questioned the logical basis for this. I didn't answer at the time but my answer is simply that I assumed it to be true. Not a farfetched assumption if there is God. And without it there is no religion. Meanwhile if God wants to improve Man's overall well being, one way to do this is to be the third party in Prisoner Dillema situations who punishes non cooperaters. In other words make it worthwile to follow the Golden Rule.

So lets's change Pascal's wager thusly:

It is plus EV to ASSUME that there is a God who in some way will make it infinitely better if you follow the Golden Rule than if you don't. (Only if you believe that the chances of such a God existing is zero does this not work.)
Notice that this revised Sklansky- Pascal Wager eliminates the two earlier flaws mentioned. No reasonable person believes that DISOBEYING the Golden Rule may actually be a way into heaven. (As opposed to some religions that might believe that disbelieving in Christ is neccesary for salvation.) Secondly, anybody can ASSUME that God exists without actually believing that there is a high probability that he does. Any non zero probability in their mind suffices.