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 considered. > 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 thought-experiment. > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---