# RE: Thought Experiment #269-G (Duplicates)

```Bruno writes

> >> Each Lee-i is offered 5\$ each time his bet is confirmed, but
> >> loses 5\$ if he makes a wrong bet.
> >
> > And yes, it would be possible to emphasize to each instance that
> > he is to attempt to maximize "his own instance's" earnings.
>
> Quite correct.
>
> >> What will be your strategy in each version? Will your strategy differ?
> >
> > Now if the Lees know all these facts, then they'll anticipate being
> > in both rooms upon each iteration. Therefore, they'll anticipate
> > losing \$5 in one room and gaining \$5 in the other. They'll also
> > realize that all bit sequences are being carried out. Therefore,
> > it doesn't make any difference whatsoever. The expectation of
> > each sequence is exactly the same number of dollars: zero.
> >
> > I don't get the significance of this.
>
> looks like you are forgetting I give you the choice between A, B, C, D. ```
```
Sorry.

>> You are asked to bet on your immediate and less immediate
>> future feeling. Precisely: we ask you to choose among the
>> following bets:
>>
>> Immediate:
>> A. I will see 0 on the wall.
>> B. I will see 1 on the wall.
>> C. I will see 0 on the wall and I will see 1 on the wall.
>> D. I will see 0 on the wall or I will see 1 on the wall.

I choose C: insofar as I consider myself as a program, then
the program will see 0 on the wall and the program will also
see 1 on the wall. The program will experienced both. I will
experience both.

> I guess you did choose C, without saying.

Right.

> In that case you are correct the expectation will be zero. Are you sure
> there is not a better strategy among A, B, C, D?

Why do you think that there is a better strategy?

C. will comport with all the facts.  And afterwards, when a poll
is conducted among all those who can prove that they are Lee Corbin
it will be found that half of them saw a 1 and half saw a zero.
It is preposterous to finger *any* of them and accuse them of
not being me.

They will each believe that they are me (i.e., the me here in the
past). That is, for each Lee', they will assert Lee' = Lee.
So also will Lee'' assert that Lee'' = Lee.  So IT'S FREAKING
OBVIOUS THAT Lee'' = Lee'.

Yet substitute someone else's name for mine in those equations,
and they'll demur.

Lee

```