We are now advanced enough to tackle this issue formally, by trying to construct an equilibrium in a combinatorially exhaustive population of acausal trading programs. Is there an acausal version of the “no-trade theorem”?
I brought up a similar objection to acausal trade, and found [Nesov_2010]’s reply somewhat convincing.
His reply doesn’t address the problem of potentially prohibitive difficulty of acausal trade, it merely appeals to its theoretical possibility. Essentially, the argument is that “there is still a chance”, but that’s not enough,
“between zero chance of becoming wealthy, and epsilon chance, there is an order-of-epsilon difference”
I brought up a similar objection to acausal trade, and found Nesov’s reply somewhat convincing. What do you think?
We are now advanced enough to tackle this issue formally, by trying to construct an equilibrium in a combinatorially exhaustive population of acausal trading programs. Is there an acausal version of the “no-trade theorem”?
His reply doesn’t address the problem of potentially prohibitive difficulty of acausal trade, it merely appeals to its theoretical possibility. Essentially, the argument is that “there is still a chance”, but that’s not enough,