[MD] Choosing Chance

[craigerb at comcast.net]

[Arlo] 
> Its relevance is that it must be so. 

[Craig, previously] 
>  Owww.  The old "it must be so argument".  The 2nd most irrefutable argument, 
> next to "you can't have a Red Ryder BB gun because you'll put your eye out!" 


[Arlo] 
Bad rhetoric 

[Craig] 
But accurate quotation. 
This has been a good exchange--worthy of summary in the archives. 
Although I can't think of any argument for your position, it is one that 
must be considered.  Perhaps Krimel (the chance expert) or Andre 
(who possibly has another viewpoint) can further the exchange. 
I do wonder about determining the probability of my choosing broccoli 
ice cream.  What if I can't think of a single possible instance where I would 
freely choose it over vanilla ice cream?  Why would anyone assign it any 
non-zero probability?  Because I'm always freely choosing vanilla??? 
What would Wittgenstein say?  


[Andre] 
> is this freedom in the MoQ sense? 
What is the distinction you're making between freedom "in the MoQ sense" 
& some other (give examples)? 

. 
[Andre] 
> Is it even freedom of choice? I can see a variety of cases: 
1) You are offered broccoli ice cream at $1 or vanilla at $2, 
but you have only $1. 
2) you prefer vanilla but it gives you a rash. 
3) you prefer vanilla but that means the other person is stuck with broccoli. 
4) you really want chocolate. 
5) you are bribed to take broccoli. 
6) you are warned not to take vanilla. 
7) there are no known bad consequences or cost to you 
in taking either vanilla or broccoli, there is plenty 
of each for everyone, you have a reasonable expectation 
as to how the vanilla and the broccoli each will taste, 
you've made no agreement constraining your choice, 
you like either vanilla or broccoli (or both), 
and so on. 
I think 7) is the case Arlo & I are considering. 
Craig