And one thing I’ve noticed in people who routinely excel at high variance games—e.g. Poker, MTG—is how unaffected they are when they’re down/behind. There is a mindset, in the moment, not of playing to win… but of playing optimally—of making the best move they can in any situation, of playing to maximize their outs no matter how unlikely they may be.
What you’ve lost isn’t the future, it’s the fantasy.
At least under the common conception of fantasy, this is an extremely strong claim, because you are effectively claiming that the good future in Ben Pace’s head could never have been realized, and I see no reason to conclude this from an epistemic perspective at all, unless you are masssively overconfident (even if you do have reasonably high doom probabilities, this statement is not true.)
More generally, it’s known that it does not always add up to normality, see here:
This point would be really helpful for everyone.
That said, I’d dispute this claim here:
At least under the common conception of fantasy, this is an extremely strong claim, because you are effectively claiming that the good future in Ben Pace’s head could never have been realized, and I see no reason to conclude this from an epistemic perspective at all, unless you are masssively overconfident (even if you do have reasonably high doom probabilities, this statement is not true.)
More generally, it’s known that it does not always add up to normality, see here:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/74crqQnH8v9JtJcda/egan-s-theorem#oZNLtNAazf3E5bN6X