On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 at 6:20 am, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> >>> Today before the duplication there is only one >>> "I" >>> but tomorrow after the duplication there will be two, therefore >>> it >>> is not a question >>> , >>> it is just a sequence of words that follow the rules of grammar >>> correctly but mean nothing. >>> And "How many cities will I be in tomorrow?" is not a question either. >>> >>> >> >> > >> The language can cope with one "I" becoming two. The question is >> understandable and has a definite answer. >> > > You've said that many many times but strangely you've never given a definite > answer as to what the name of that one and only one city actually turned > out to be. Why is that? > > > >>> >> >>> Explain what "bet" the personal pronoun "you" can make today that will >>> economically benafit the >>> person >>> al >>> pronoun "you" >>> tomorrow. And just as important explain what sort of rational agent >>> would cover that "bet". Who is on the other side of the "bet"? >>> >> >> > >> I who am about to be duplicated bet $1 that I will end up in Washington. >> You, who will not be duplicated, are the counterparty to this bet. >> > > John Clark would never take that bet unless the "I" were replaced by > "Bruno Marchal" or if "I" were specified as being any intelligent being > that remembers making the bet. > > > >> > >> I am duplicated along with the $1 in my pocket. >> >> > > If money can be duplicated too then the men and their pockets seem like > unnecessary fifth wheels in all this. > > > >> > >> The Washington copy and the Moscow copy of me each give you $1. >> > > Why would the Washington copy give me anything? The Washington man, to > absolutely nobody's surprise, did see Washington so I give him $1. > > >> > >> You give the Washington copy $2 >> > > You said the bet was for $1. > > >> > >> and the Moscow copy nothing. >> > > The Moscow copy should give me $1 because the Moscow man, to absolutely > nobody's surprise, did NOT see Washington. > > So from the very start I know I will give $1 to W and M will give $1 to > me? Why would I or any serious person accept this "bet"? > > > >> This interesting thing about this bet is that you are not really >> gambling, because you know exactly what you will get, and since it is a >> fair bet you will have no net gain or loss. >> > > Then it's not a bet, I don't know what it is but it's pretty silly. > > > >> > >> I, on the other hand, expect to either get double or nothing, >> > > What Mr. I expects is of no interest , what will happen is, and that is > Bruno Marchal will get get double or nothing. > > So there is no way > Bruno Marchal > can > gain or lose > by making the "bet" and no way for John Clark to > gain or lose > by accepting that "bet". > > >> > >> and I don't know which. >> > > You don't know now and you will never know nor will anybody else because > nobody knows which ONE is I after ONE I uses a I duplicating machine and > becomes TWO. > > Let me explain the bet more clearly. I will be duplicated tomorrow in Moscow and Washington. I have $1 in my pocket, and this will be duplicated with me. (Assume this is legal provided that the money is duplicated along with the owner). The bet I make is that after the duplication, I will pay you $1 and you (who will not be duplicated) will pay me $2 if I am in Washington, and nothing if I am in Moscow. The "I" here, to spell it out in case you are confused, is anyone who remembers being me and making the bet. So today "I" am just one person in Helsinki, but tomorrow there will be two people, one in Moscow and one in Washington, each of whom states "I made this bet yesterday". This is a fair game, in the sense that it is not biased towards either side. For you there is no net gain or loss, for me I either double my money or get nothing. If the bet is changed so that I get a $3 payout if I am the Washington copy then it is biased in my favour, if it is changed so that I get $1.50 if I am the Washington copy then it is biased in your favour, and a rational agent would use this to decide whether to bet or not. We can understand the bet, agree on when there will be a payout and who will get it, calculate whether one or other side is advantaged and decide whether to make the bet. This is not consistent with the bet being based on "nonsense". > -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
