On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 at 2:27 am, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> 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 thatafter 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. >> > > > Let's > follow the money > , assuming "me" also means "anyone who remembers being me and making the > bet" then Mr. Me must pay John Clark $2 and John Clark must pay Mr. Me $2. > We can now calculate the net result of all this with 100% certainty, John > Clark ended up with exactly the same amount of money in his pocket at the > end > of the day > that he had > at > the beginning, but Mr. Me ended up with twice as much money in his > pockets due to the > fact > > that the machine can not only duplicate people it can duplicate dollar > bills too. If John Clark were smart he'd refuse to be a collaborator > > in this counterfeiting > operation > unless he got a bigger slice of the action. > What to do with a person's assets in the event of duplication is a separate topic. For now, assume that central banks allow duplication of money only if its owner is also duplicated. While the outcome is certain for you, it is not certain for me. One copy of me will win $1 and the other copy will lose $1. Anticipating the future prior to duplication, I have a 1/2 chance of doubling my money or losing it. If I don't bet, I will certainly have $1 before and after duplication. You say "Mr Me ended up twice as much money" after duplication, but that is not how the copies see it. > > >> This is a fair game, >> > > It's not a game because skill is not involved and it's > not a bet because probability > > is not involved. All that happens is that dollar bills are passed around > in a circle and at the end of it absolutely nothing has changed for John > Clark but Mr. Me has twice as much money. All this can be predicted with > 100% certainty and we can also predict that It's all a bit silly. I'll be > dammed if I can find any philosophical significance in it. > A "fair game" when gambling is one where neither side has an advantage. Casinos do not run fair games, or they would not be viable businesses. If I were a gambler, you could propose paying me $1.90 rather than $2 if I end up in Washington. You would then make $0.10 with certainty, while I would get a better payout ratio than most gambling establishments give. The philosophical significance of all this is that one can calculate the probabilities and make rational decisions, which is not possible with the "the question is gibberish" method. > -- 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.
