On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> BUT, if there is significant suffering likely in the worlds where I
>> lose, I might very well focus making a choice that will minimize that
>> suffering.  In which case I will generally not base much of my
>> decision on the "probabilities", since it is my view that all outcomes
>> occur.
> ?

For example, if my main concern is to avoid suffering, I might only
make small bets, even in situations with very high odds of success.
In this way I avoid the pain of losing a lot of money in the few
"unlikely" worlds, though at the cost of forfeiting some gains in the
many worlds where the odds come in.

The single-world equivalent is just being very risk averse, I suppose.
 But the motivation is different.  In the single-world view, if I'm
risk averse I just don't want to take the risk of losing a lot of
money, even when given very good odds.  In the many-world view, I know
that a future version of me is going to lose, and I want to minimize
the consequences of that loss even at the expense of limiting the
gains for the winning future-Kellys.

So the idea that I might bet more when given better odds wouldn't hold
in this case because I know that betting more is causing more
suffering for the few but inevitable losing Kellys.

And I can imagine other types of scenarios where I would bet on a
lower probability outcome, if such a bet had less severe consequences
in the case of a loss.

Though the fact that at the time you place your bet, branching may
occur resulting in different bets being placed also has to be

> First, in the multiplication experience, the question of your choice
> is not addressed, nor needed.
> The question is really: what will happen to you. You give the right
> answer above.

You're saying that there are no low probability worlds?  Or only that
they're outnumbered by the high probability worlds?

I guess I'm not clear on what you're getting at with this pixel

> Have you understand UDA1-6?, because I think most get those steps. I
> will soon explain in all details UDA-7, which is not entirely obvious.
> If you take your own philosophy seriously, you don't need UDA8. But it
> can be useful to convince others, of the necessity of that
> "philosophy", once we bet on the comp hyp.

I think I have a good grasp of 1 through 6.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to