And moving factforward long enough we will go back to fact that earth is flat and then analogy does not work any more :/
“Whatever is stopping interference patterns, it looks like detectors, not consciousness.”
That is not the case, as shows delayed quantum eraser experiments. Detector does not stop interference if detected information is deleted:
What difference does memories make if you are already been told whether you are clone or original? I fail to understand this reasoning.
Another similar scenario:
Lets say laws are such that after cloning, both original and clone splits all the money that original has. Now first clone gets 50% of all wealth, second clone gets 25% and so on, while original is left with next to zero after 100 splits. That is same unfairness as in original problem, just instead of probability of having all the money you get the corresponding fraction of the money. There is no way for you to remain with 1% of your money if you are the one who keeps getting split.
What if both clone and original are told which one they are right after cloning? Then probability of being told that you are original twice is still 1⁄4.
Assume this real life scenario:
100 refugees are met by the king of host country, who says, only 1 of you will become our citizen and other 99 will be slaves. The procedure of selecting the citizen is as follows: we choose 2 of you randomly, then coin is tossed—the looser becomes slave and the winner goes for second round against another fellow randomly selected from remaining 98 and so on. The one who wins the last coin toss becomes citizen.
In this setting if you are selected 1st then you have close to 0 chance to become citizen, as if you are selected last you have 50%. The game is unfair for 1st guys being selected same way as it is unfair for the original in cloning scenario.
But that is not an actual analogy to sleeping beauty. Real analogy would be, that you are a “counted bet”, what horse are you more likely to be on?
And counting bet twice only in case of horse winning is equivalent of betting with 2:1 odds. Bookmaker will only give such odds if probability of that horse winning is 1⁄3. Hence the 1⁄3 probability.
Knowing that your bet on this horse will be counted twice does not help you win by bettin on him or against him. Analogy to sleeping beauty would be, that bet is counted twice only if this horse wins.
Suppose there is roulette table. Host throws the ball. If red—beauty is woken up 1 time, if black—two times.
When woken, beauty is asked to bet 1 dollar on either red or black. Roulette betting rules applies. Now there are two beauties—red and black. Red always bets red, black always bets black. Both undergo experiment 100 times.
In roulette red number drops out ~50% of the time. So Red queen wins ~$50 and loses ~$100 as for every black number she bets and looses 1$ twice.
Black queen gets back with ~$50 plus. In halfer world both should end up at 0.
The one who has student loan to pay is less likely to quit job.
Although I do find this indeed an interesting parable, yet I fail to see any practical implications of this insight. Perhaps you could elaborate more on if there are any?
For me, personally, it was some combination of discovering other, at that time, stronger pleasures and motivators than pure bliss of chasing the truth; depleting most of available resources of interesting information and feeling already smart enough for all intents and purposes. Although curiosity have found it’s way back to my life several times since.
My concern is that there are some share of people who might have internal desires to do harmful things to others and are smart enough to evade consequences, for whom “internalized should not” is the only thing keeping them from doing those things.
You do that. You are the man.
Lack of money does indeed lead to burn out. I hope you have not had the experience, but it is the way it is.
I would be surprised if it where, given the censorship state currently this site is in.
Are you saying moderators are upvoting/downvoting posts by more points than is supposed by the system?
My suggestion is to show up-votes and down-votes separately. Naturally the post that gets no votes at all and post that gets 50 downvotes and 50 upvotes are of different significance and that should be visible.
I believe the worst possible incentive you can think of for somebody who you think is trying to get attention, is to give him attention. That`s just my two cents, not trying to seem as I know how to do your job ;)