On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:37 AM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 2:05 AM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> >> Physics is at the bottom of all non-mathematical things that have an >>> >> explanation, but we now know that some things have no explanation. We now >>> >> know that some things are random. >> >> >> >> > Here you accept there is inherent randomness. > > > Yes. > >> > Where do you think this randomness comes from? > > > So you're asking me what causes events that have no cause, and I think the > answer to that question is rather obvious.
What about my other question: Do you think randomness is an objective feature of reality or only an illusion for observers? > >>> > John Clark correctly predicted that the Moscow man would see Moscow >>> > and the Washington man would see Moscow. John Clark doesn't understand >>> > what >>> > more should be expected of a prediction; >> >> >> > If you have ever played a game like poker, you would see predictions all >> > the time > > > I don't play poker but I am not unfamiliar with the word "prediction". > Sorry, I meant to say "you would see predictions of this kind all the time". That is, predictions that involve uncertainty about what future observations one will observe. This uncertainties can be assigned probabilities, even when one is operating under the theory that everything that can happen does. >> > You won't play the game very well if you operate under the theory that >> > there is a 100% chance that you will experience winning, losing, and >> > sharing >> > the pot > > > Nevertheless if Many Worlds is correct (and I don't know that it is) then > there are a infinite (or perhaps only a astronomical) number of John Clark's > that do operate under that theory, and as a result in many of those worlds > John Clark is a very poor poker player. But in some worlds (perhaps a > infinite number of them) John Clark is a professional poker player and > because of that theory has never lost a single game in his entire life. > So would you play the following game of chance: You pay some fixed amount to play, and in doing so 10 copies of the universe will be created, and in one of them you will win $1,000 and in 9 of them you will get nothing. My question to you is what do you consider is a fair price to play this game? Is it on the order of $100 or $1,000? Most people would calculate the expected value of the game as $1,000 * 10% = $100. But under your logic, it would make sense to pay up to $1,000, since you pay the amount only once, as one of you is guaranteed to get $1,000 back. Is this accurate, or do you agree with $100 being the fair price given your first person uncertainty regarding your future experience of the outcome? If you agree $100 is the fair price, then you agree with step 3 of the UDA. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
