HackerPapers

arXiv:1405.0585econ.GN

Evaluating gambles using dynamics

Ole Peters, Murray Gell-Mann

Abstract

Gambles are random variables that model possible changes in monetary wealth. Classic decision theory transforms money into utility through a utility function and defines the value of a gamble as the expectation value of utility changes. Utility functions aim to capture individual psychological characteristics, but their generality limits predictive power. Expectation value maximizers are defined as rational in economics, but expectation values are only meaningful in the presence of ensembles or in systems with ergodic properties, whereas decision-makers have no access to ensembles and the variables representing wealth in the usual growth models do not have the relevant ergodic properties. Simultaneously addressing the shortcomings of utility and those of expectations, we propose to evaluate gambles by averaging wealth growth over time. No utility function is needed, but a dynamic must be specified to compute time averages. Linear and logarithmic "utility functions" appear as transformations that generate ergodic observables for purely additive and purely multiplicative dynamics, respectively. We highlight inconsistencies throughout the development of decision theory, whose correction clarifies that our perspective is legitimate. These invalidate a commonly cited argument for bounded utility functions.

arXiv comments
11 pages, 2 figures
Journal reference
Chaos 26, 023103 (2016)
DOI
doi:10.1063/1.4940236
Subjects
econ.GNGeneral Economics cond-mat.stat-mechStatistical Mechanics q-fin.GNGeneral Finance

On Hacker News

Linked by 2 identifiable commenters in 2 comments across 2 threads, from Dec 2019 to Aug 2023.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments2 threads

    • See also: Peters and Gell-Mann (2015) https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0585 Adamou et al (2019) https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.02137

      beefmanView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.