= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vaniver comments on Iterated Sleeping Beauty and Copied Minds - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (33)
So obviously your person doesn't magically transfer from the current copy of you to future copies of you. Rather, those future persons are you because they are psychologically continuous with the present you. Now when you make multiple copies of yourself it isn't right to say that just one of them will be you. You may never experience both of them but from the perspective of each copy you are their past. So when all million copies of you wake up all of them will feel like they are the next stage of you. All of them will be right. Given that you know there will be a future stage of you that will win the lottery how can that copy (the copy that is the future stage of you that has won the lottery) be surprised? The copy has, in it's past, a memory of being told that there would be exactly one copy psychologically continuous with his past self. Of course, the winning copy will have some kind of self-awareness "Oh, I'm that copy" but of course it has a memory of expecting exactly that from the copy that won the lottery.
I may need to be providing a more extensive philosophical context about personal identity for this to make sense, I'm not sure.
I don't think that's relevant. If a copy would be not surprised to learn that it is the winning copy, does that mean it would be surprised to learn that it is not the winning copy? Or is it sensible that the lower probability event be the higher surprise event?
I think this is where your view breaks down.Each individual should be unsurprised that an individual will win. But each individual should be as surprised that they are the lucky winning copy as a normal person would be surprised that they are the lucky person winning a normal lottery. All you've done is reduced the interpersonal distance between the different lottery players, not changed the underlying probabilities- and so while the level of surprise may decrease on other issues (like predicting what the winnings will be used for) it shouldn't decrease on the location of the winner.
That may make clearer my view, if you word it as "this one shares a cell with the winning ticket" rather than "I won the lottery," then personhood and identity isn't an issue besides the physical aspect.