"it's all downhill from here"
I'm still on X, I posted a thread about the paper there: twitter.com/LedermanHarv...
I've just posted a final version of my paper "Of Marbles and Matchsticks", which won a Sanders prize this past December. I fell in love with the questions, and for better or worse ended up pouring effort into the paper. I hope you'll give it a read! philpapers.org/archive/LEDO...
(Though I really hadn't thought abt relationship to equilibrium selection, so that is a new idea I have yet to digest...)
Sorry I forgot to look here for a bit! Interesting -- I can definitely understand this attitude. I need to think more about these analogies (and what disanalogies there might be). I knew there was something to the analogy, but hadn't brought it out clearly to myself, so thanks v much for the thread!
Maybe my reaction there is that it's a symptom of a disease? But in the incomplete preferences case I think the preference for the lottery is (more) easily explained once we have the sets of utilities idea on the table (or for that matter ex ante pareto). But I may not be responding to your concern?
Is it that you know you won't want to buy them tomorrow, or you know you'll be permitted not to buy them tomorrow?
the lottery. So while my confidence in ND has gone down, I'm still not sure what to say about this particular case. none of that engages with your interesting discussion! Just reporting a few things. Thanks so much for reading the paper and posting about it!
where we discuss how an analogue Negative Dominance is really in tension with very weak ex ante pareto-style principles. Reflecting on this sort of case has made me think we should reject Negative Dominance in general. I'm still moved, though, that in Mira's case, it's weird to require