2013/1/10 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> > On 1/9/2013 2:14 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > We start each with 100$ that we use to make the first bet, the column > contains the $ we have in our pocket after the bet depending on the result. > > > I don't know what "Me" and "Brent" mean in this? betting on survival or > death? >
Me = Betting on survival Brent = Betting on death > > > bet n° Experimenter survive Experimenter die bet n° ME BRENT ME BRENT > 1 200$ (win 100$) 0$ (lost 100$) 0$ (lost 100$) 200$ (win 100$) 2 300$ > (win 100$) -100$ (lost 100$) 100$ (lost 100$) 100$ (win 100$) 3 400$ > (win 100$) -200$ (lost 100$) 200$ (lost 100$) 0$ (win 100$) 4 500$ (win > 100$) -300$ (lost 100$) 300$ (lost 100$) -100$ (win 100$) ... > All bets on the column 'experimenter die' are finals, no more bets can be > put after because the experimenter is dead and won't revive. > > > Yes, that's why in the equation > > > E = 0.99(-$100) + 0.01($100 + E) > > there is no "+E" in the first parentheses; 99% of time there is no > continuation. > > > > > Only on the first bet, do I lose money (yes it 99% of the resulting world > *after and only* the first bet. But after that first bet if the > experimenter has survived *all* next bet are winner bet (in *all* worlds > weither the experimenter lives or not making it a final bet). > > > But his survival is rare, so all those good looking 200$, 300$,...are > rare. You write outcomes, but with not probabilities - that's not how to > calculate expected values. I stand by my analysis. > > Brent > Well let's see and let's count, if MWI is *true* (this is important and not to be overlooked) and let's take for the sake of argument as if after each bet the universe was split in 100 worlds : After first bet: There is one world where I have 200$ in my pocket and 99 worlds where I did lost 100$ and have now 0$ in my pocket. There is one world where you lost 100$ and have 0$ in your pocket and 99 where you did win 100$ and have 200$ in your pocket. The 99 you winners here are not elligible for a second bet (they are in a world where the experimenter is dead), only the you who lost the 100$ can do a second bet, likewise for the 99 me who lost 100$ they can't make a second bet, only the one who win. After the second bet: There is one world where I have 300$ in my pocket and 99 world where I have 100$ in my pocket (like before starting). There is one world where you have -100$ in your pocket and 99 world where you have 100$ in your pocket (remember that the you who's bet here was the one who lost the first bet). The 99 you who have now only 0$ in your pocket are not elligible for a third bet, only the one who lost and have now a 100$ debt can do a third bet, likewise, only the me who has won and has 300$ can make a third bet. After the third bet: There is one world where I have 400$ in my pocket and 99 world where I have 200$ in my pocket (100$ more than before starting). There is one world where you have -200$ in your pocket and 99 world where you have 0$ in your pocket (100$ less than before starting). The 99 you who have now a debt of 100$ are not elligible for a fourth bet, only the one who lost and have now a 200$ debt can do a fourth bet, likewise, only the me who has won and has 400$ can make a fourth bet. After the fourth bet: There is one world where I have 500$ in my pocket and 99 world where I have 300$ in my pocket (200$ more than before starting). There is one world where you have -300$ in your pocket and 99 world where you have -100$ in your pocket (200$ less than before starting). Let's just stop here and count: There are 99 versions of me who lost 100$. There is 1 version of me who has 500$ (400$ more). There are 99 versions of me who have 300$ (200$ more). There are 99 versions of me who have 200$ (100$ more). There are 99 versions of me who have 100$ (0$ more). Just here after the fourth bet, there are already 199 versions of me who are richer and *only* 99 versions who are poorer and 99 version who did not win or lost anything. There are 99 versions of you who win 100$. There is 1 version of you who has -300$ (400$ less). There are 99 versions of you who have -100$ (200$ less). There are 99 versions of you who have 0$ (100$ less). There are 99 versions of you who have 100$ (same as before starting). In this setup, only 99 version of you have win, but 199 versions of you have lost money and 99 versions of you did not win or lost anything. If you continue to bet on death, soon loser will vastly outnumber winners... Remember that if MWI is true *all* those world exists. In the contrary in a QM+collapse scenario, I agree *you should* bet on death because if the experimenter die... well he die, no branches where they are winners exists. So if MWI is true, you should bet the improbable and not the sure bet ! Regards, Quentin Regards, Quentin 2013/1/9 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> > On 1/9/2013 11:52 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2013/1/9 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> > >> On 1/9/2013 3:10 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> let us start with the proposed QS experiment by Tegmark, a QS machine >>> with a 99/100 chance of a *perfect* kill (so let's put aside HP failure or >>> whatever so to have either the experimenter is killed with the given >>> probabilities or it is not, no in between, so in 1/100 he is not killed and >>> perfectly well, 99/100 he is killed). >>> >>> You are a witness of such experiment, and you're asked to make a bet on >>> the experimenter surviving (or not). >>> >>> So you bet 100$, if you bet on the experimenter surviving, if he >>> survive, you'll get 200$, if he does not you'll lose your bet, likewise if >>> you bet on him die. >>> >>> What you should do contrary to what seems reasonable, is to bet on the >>> experimenter will survive for the following reason: >>> >>> If MWI is true: >>> >>> 1st Test: in 99/100 worlds you lose 100$ (and the bet ends here, there >>> is no experimenter left for a second round), in 1/100 worlds you win 200$ >>> 2nd Test: well... you cannot play again in the 99/100 worlds where you >>> did lose 100$, so you start already with 200$ in your pocket for this 2nd >>> test, so you should do the same, no here in 99/100 worlds, you did make a >>> draw (you put 100$ in 1st test + 100$ win on the 1st test - 100$ you did >>> lose now because the experimenter is dead), in 1/100 you win again 200$, >>> that make 300$ in your pocket. >>> >>> >From the 3rd test on, you can only get richer, weither the experimenter >>> lives from your POV or not. >>> >>> In QM+collapse, if the guy luckily survive two tests, you win money... >>> you'll only lose money if he is killed at the first test. >>> >>> >>> So contrary to what you may think, you should bet the experimenter >>> should live, because in MWI, it is garanteed that you'll win money in a lot >>> branches after only two succeeded test, and as in QM+collapse, only the >>> 99/100 of the first test lose money, all the others either make no loss or >>> win money. >>> >> >> Did you bother to calculate the expected value of playing this game? >> It's $98/0.99 whether you bet on survival or death. And since >> $98/0.99<$100 you had to start with, it's better not to play at all. >> > > ?? > > you only lose on first bet if the experimenter die, which in MWI happens > in 99% of the worlds... so discounting that *first* and only bet where you > lose, you win 100$ every time till the experimenter die. > > On 2nd bet, you win nothing if the experimenter die (100$ (from first bet) > +100$ (from winning first bet)-100$(from losing second bet). > > At the third bet, you win 100$ if the experimenter die... and 100$ more > every time you see the experimenter survive. Only on the first bet when the > experimenter die you lose 100$ (and in that case, there is no more bet > possible as there is no more experimenter). > > > > Let E=expected value of playing the game by always betting on survival > > E = 0.99(-$100) + 0.01($100 + E) > > Solve for E ==> E=98/0.99 Let F=expected value of playing the game and > always betting on death > > F = 0.99($100) + 0.01(-$100 + F) > > solution is left as an exercise to the reader. > > Brent > > > > > But after the second bet, all worlds following that 2nd bet if MWI is > true, contains *only* winner witness. > > Quentin > >> >> Brent >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> >> > > > -- > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- > 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 > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6017 - Release Date: 01/07/13 > > > -- > 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 > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6017 - Release Date: 01/07/13 -- > 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 > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
