it depends upon your past self having more information than your current self.
Or maybe you just spent more time thinking it through before. “Never doubt under pressure what you have calculated at leisure.” I think that previous states should have some influence on your current choices. As the link says:
If your evidence may be substantially incomplete you shouldn’t just ignore sunk costs—they contain valuable information about decisions you or others made in the past, perhaps after much greater thought or access to evidence than that of which you are currently capable.
Everybody does that anyway, it is usually called second-guessing yourself. The best rule is to not decide under pressure unless you really have to, take the time to think things through.
That presumes you’ve forgotten why you did something to begin with, your reasoning having created that information. Again, given the precise conditions, I think it’s a perfectly fine argument. I just don’t find those conditions more probable than the converse, which is to say, having more information.
Or maybe you just spent more time thinking it through before. “Never doubt under pressure what you have calculated at leisure.” I think that previous states should have some influence on your current choices. As the link says:
Also remember the corollary that any decision made under pressure could probably stand to be reviewed at leisure.
Everybody does that anyway, it is usually called second-guessing yourself. The best rule is to not decide under pressure unless you really have to, take the time to think things through.
That presumes you’ve forgotten why you did something to begin with, your reasoning having created that information. Again, given the precise conditions, I think it’s a perfectly fine argument. I just don’t find those conditions more probable than the converse, which is to say, having more information.