A tall young man comes to your door. He speaks with a heavy accent and
occasionally uses nonsense words. After a few pleasantries, he tells
you that he's from a parallel universe that is a near duplicate of our
own except that it's several centuries ahead.

His mission is to change our future. In his universe, a series of wars
and plagues reduced mankind at one point to less than a thousand
people. In some universes so closely parallel that there was no
detectable difference, everyone died.

He acknowledges that his merely popping in changes our 'history', but
it's their experience that the effect won't alter the fabric of
society enough to prevent the tragedy.

But there is something you can do. They have records from 'our' time
and know that tonight's lottery won't have a winner. He's checked the
numbers from six different games for the past two weeks (as displayed
on a poster at a gas station he passed on his way from the transfer
point to your home), and all 552 numbers agree with those on his list,
indicating high parallelism with their universe. Since the drawing is
within hours and at a considerable distance, it is highly unlikely
that his presence will affect the balls drawn.

By chance, you planned to go to the grocery store today anyway, and
can buy a lottery ticket there.


What, if anything, could he say to convince you to spend a dollar to
play 'his' numbers for a $65,000,000 lottery?


What he can't do:

He cannot show you any gadgets from the future to prove his story.
Since they have little personal data on those they will be contacting,
they cannot know if/when one of their contact personnel will be taken
captive and his belongings examined. It is their experience that any
introduction of their technology into an earlier society inevitably
leads to an imbalance in world power and hastens the onset of the wars
and plagues they suffered.

He cannot explain the theoretical/scientific/technological basis for
travel between universes. All he remembers from science class is that
it has something to do with flux gradients in a continuum and that
Merita of Freeshore came up with the equations for it. (They consider
such ignorance vital -- too many times their contact personnel have
been tortured for their knowledge or turned rogue and set up their own
dynasties.)

He cannot tell you anything about the near future. Contact personnel
are chosen from those who have never shown any interest in PRE (the
Pre-Rebirth Epoch) for much the same reasons.

He cannot say how much further ahead his universe is. He's been told
he was being sent back "several centuries" but he thinks it must be
much more.

He cannot say why you were selected, or even known about, or if the
person 'destined' to win next week's lottery was somehow important in
causing the wars and plagues, because contact personnel are not given
such information.

He cannot tell you crucial details about a lot of things in his daily
life. He graduated 246 in a class of 280. He was a furniture salesman
before applying to be a contact person, and he was only interested in
the job because it meant fewer hours and better pay.

He cannot allow you to witness him leaving. The transfer point is in a
small chamber in a cave, and once there, he may have to wait a few
minutes or a few hours before the transfer is activated. When it
happens, the effect will injure anyone close by and damage any
electronics. You could follow him into the cave, wait at a safe
distance in the main alley until its over, and look for other exits
afterwards, but doing so will make you too late to buy a ticket.
--

: Wildepad <noreplies>
: What, if anything, could he say to convince you to spend a dollar to
: play 'his' numbers for a $65,000,000 lottery?

He can give me the dollar.


Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

Wildepad wrote:
> A tall young man comes to your door. He speaks with a heavy accent and
> occasionally uses nonsense words. After a few pleasantries, he tells
> you that he's from a parallel universe that is a near duplicate of our
> own except that it's several centuries ahead.
>
> His mission is to change our future.
<snip>
> What he can't do:
<snip long list>

He seems to have been selected and prepared specifically to _fail_ at
this mission, for some reason. He really should have been sent with some
kind of eye-catching gizmo to impress me with, I don't see why they
couldn't build sufficient security into something like that to prevent
it from falling into the "wrong hands".

Anyway, I'd probably listen to his story for about ten seconds before
concluding he's a nut and shooing him off my porch, especially with the
weather as cold as it is right now. My suggestion would be for him to
write the numbers and name of the lottery and such on a card that he can
hand to me, make his spiel, and then politely go away when I suggest
that I'm not interested. That's probably the best he can do under the
limitations given. No way would I _believe_ him, but if I've got the
card on me when I'm in the store I just might give it a whirl. Highly
unlikely though since I don't consider lotteries to be worthwhile either
as an "investment" or as "fun".

A far better strategy would be for him to simply buy the ticket himself
and hand _that_ to me. I'd pass it along to my dad, who actually does
buy lottery tickets and so would check the winning numbers when they're
announced.

Bryan Derksen skrev:
> My suggestion would be for him to
> write the numbers and name of the lottery and such on a card that he can
> hand to me, make his spiel, and then politely go away when I suggest
> that I'm not interested. That's probably the best he can do under the
> limitations given. No way would I _believe_ him, but if I've got the
> card on me when I'm in the store I just might give it a whirl. Highly
> unlikely though since I don't consider lotteries to be worthwhile either
> as an "investment" or as "fun".

I wouldn't believe him either and would probably buy the ticket just to
prove it. I'm a sucker that way.

> A far better strategy would be for him to simply buy the ticket himself
> and hand _that_ to me. I'd pass it along to my dad, who actually does
> buy lottery tickets and so would check the winning numbers when they're
> announced.

Seems rather obvious doesn't it.

Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
> A tall young man comes to your door. He speaks with a heavy accent and
> occasionally uses nonsense words. After a few pleasantries, he tells
> you that he's from a parallel universe that is a near duplicate of our
> own except that it's several centuries ahead.
[snip]
> What, if anything, could he say to convince you to spend a dollar to
> play 'his' numbers for a $65,000,000 lottery?

Jack diddly squat.

A poorly-spoken man shows up at my door babbling about alternate
universes. If he's *lucky* he lasts five seconds before my door closes in
his face. And if he persists in knocking, he gets perhaps three more tries
before I call the police.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

On Feb 10, 12:41 am, Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
> A tall young man comes to your door. He speaks with a heavy accent and
> occasionally uses nonsense words. After a few pleasantries, he tells
> you that he's from a parallel universe that is a near duplicate of our
> own except that it's several centuries ahead.
>
> His mission is to change our future. In his universe, a series of wars
> and plagues reduced mankind at one point to less than a thousand
> people. In some universes so closely parallel that there was no
> detectable difference, everyone died.
>
> He acknowledges that his merely popping in changes our 'history', but
> it's their experience that the effect won't alter the fabric of
> society enough to prevent the tragedy.
>
> But there is something you can do. They have records from 'our' time
> and know that tonight's lottery won't have a winner. He's checked the
> numbers from six different games for the past two weeks (as displayed
> on a poster at a gas station he passed on his way from the transfer
> point to your home), and all 552 numbers agree with those on his list,
> indicating high parallelism with their universe. Since the drawing is
> within hours and at a considerable distance, it is highly unlikely
> that his presence will affect the balls drawn.
>
> By chance, you planned to go to the grocery store today anyway, and
> can buy a lottery ticket there.
>
> What, if anything, could he say to convince you to spend a dollar to
> play 'his' numbers for a $65,000,000 lottery?

He walks by a gas station? He should just buy the ticket himself
there; every gas station I've ever been to sells lotto. He could then
stick it in a envelope with a short letter explaining the whys and
whatnots and slide it under my door and go away. That'd be a fun story
to read, right? :)

If he's unwilling and unable to actually do anything to prove any
aspect of his story pre-lotto draw, then talk isn't going to convince
anyone that wouldn't also be convinced by the door-to-door religious
nuts and the rants of homeless people. A handful of people would buy
the ticket just to prove him wrong, or because a dollar is a
reasonable price for such a far fetched story, or just out of the
"what if" factor.

It seems to me if this Descendant Command really wants to ensure my
time line doesn't follow theirs down the drain, they'd forget about
the $65 million and the lottery and take billions from parallel times
and use it to fund a full-on organization dedicated to making whatever
changes are necessary.

--
DJensen

> By chance, you planned to go to the grocery store today anyway, and
> can buy a lottery ticket there.
>
> What, if anything, could he say to convince you to spend a dollar to
> play 'his' numbers for a $65,000,000 lottery?

If I was going to buy a ticket anyway, playing his numbers would
suffice as well as the random ones the machine would spit out.

"Wildepad" <noreplies> wrote in message
news:0t0sq3dbpdo8mtj17t8ia12b591h885dd5@4ax.com...
>A tall young man comes to your door. He speaks with a heavy accent and
> occasionally uses nonsense words. After a few pleasantries, he tells
> you that he's from a parallel universe that is a near duplicate of our
> own except that it's several centuries ahead.
>
*Random snip*

Gotta be better than the "system" I'm using now.
I wouldn't feed him.

On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 23:41:45 -0600, Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:

>A tall young man comes to your door. He speaks with a heavy accent and
>occasionally uses nonsense words. After a few pleasantries, he tells
>you that he's from a parallel universe that is a near duplicate of our
>own except that it's several centuries ahead.
>
>His mission is to change our future. In his universe, a series of wars
>and plagues reduced mankind at one point to less than a thousand
>people. In some universes so closely parallel that there was no
>detectable difference, everyone died.
>
>He acknowledges that his merely popping in changes our 'history', but
>it's their experience that the effect won't alter the fabric of
>society enough to prevent the tragedy.
>
>But there is something you can do. They have records from 'our' time
>and know that tonight's lottery won't have a winner. He's checked the
>numbers from six different games for the past two weeks (as displayed
>on a poster at a gas station he passed on his way from the transfer
>point to your home), and all 552 numbers agree with those on his list,
>indicating high parallelism with their universe. Since the drawing is
>within hours and at a considerable distance, it is highly unlikely
>that his presence will affect the balls drawn.

>By chance, you planned to go to the grocery store today anyway, and
>can buy a lottery ticket there.

>What, if anything, could he say to convince you to spend a dollar to
>play 'his' numbers for a $65,000,000 lottery?

>What he can't do:

Convince me that he's telling the truth. One of the more likely actual
explanations, is that he's a psychology grad student conducting some sort
of study, and even if we assume I'm a hundred times smarter than the
average psychology grad student, he has very likely put a hundred times
more effort into thinking this scheme up than I'm going to waste trying
to unravel it. So I'll expect to be outsmarted rather than convinced,
and won't allow myself to be convinced.

But as long as his spiel is entertaining, and I don't have anything better
to do, I'll ask him the obvious questions. Those are mostly the ones you
say he won't answer, so it's going to get boring real fast and I'm going
to send him on his way.

If I remember his numbers, though, I will buy a lottery ticket. That's
occasionally a worthwhile purchase for the entertainment value on its
own, and he's made this one more entertaining than most.


If I *win*, I'm going to have to put a whole lot of thought into what
comes next. The lottery people can live with the suspense (this is the
sort of purchase I'd normally make with cash, and I'd make certain of
it this time).


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.Schillin@alumni.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

On Feb 9, 10:41 pm, Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:

> What, if anything, could he say to convince you to spend a dollar to
> play 'his' numbers for a $65,000,000 lottery?

He wouldn't have to say much to convince me to do _that_, but if he
wanted something more serious, *then* he would have a big problem.
After all, the very slim possibility he is telling the truth is enough
to improve the odds of winning the $65 million significantly.

John Savard

In Message-ID:<0t0sq3dbpdo8mtj17t8ia12b591h885dd5@4ax.com>,
Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:

>A tall young man comes to your door. He speaks with a heavy accent and
>occasionally uses nonsense words. After a few pleasantries, he tells
>you that he's from a parallel universe that is a near duplicate of our
>own except that it's several centuries ahead.
>
>His mission is to change our future.
<snip>
>But there is something you can do. They have records from 'our' time
>and know that tonight's lottery won't have a winner. He's checked the
>numbers from six different games for the past two weeks (as displayed
>on a poster at a gas station he passed on his way from the transfer
>point to your home), and all 552 numbers agree with those on his list,
>indicating high parallelism with their universe. Since the drawing is
>within hours and at a considerable distance, it is highly unlikely
>that his presence will affect the balls drawn.
<snip>
>What, if anything, could he say to convince you to spend a dollar to
>play 'his' numbers for a $65,000,000 lottery?

It doesn't matter. Given infinite parallel universes: in
some I'll be convinced; in some I won't; in some I'd have played
those numbers, regardless.

Your homework assignment is to read Niven's "All the Myriad
Ways" (a short story collected in a book of the same name).

--
Arthur T. - ar23hur "at" intergate "dot" com
Looking for a z/OS (IBM mainframe) systems programmer position

: Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
: After all, the very slim possibility he is telling the truth is enough
: to improve the odds of winning the $65 million significantly.

"Significantly"? I don't quite see that. Hm. You know, if he were
privy to information from a conspiracy to fix the lottery, then I suppose
*that* would "imprive the odds". But that seems to be one of the few
scenarios worth evaluating where there'd be an increased chance.

Come to think of it, though, that mighe well be a disincentive
to actually buying the ticket. One would have to suspect an attempt
(for some unknown reason) to implicate one in the conspiracy (possibly
so the actual culprits could get away with it.

I said before that "if he gave mee the dollar" it might convince me
to spend a dollar on the lottery. In light of the above possibility,
I'd have to consider whether he wants to pass me the dollar to spoof
some anticipated forensic test...


Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:52:50 +0100, Jens Egon Nyborg
<jens.e.nyborg@spamtrap.mars> wrote:

>Bryan Derksen skrev:
>
>I wouldn't believe him either and would probably buy the ticket just to
>prove it. I'm a sucker that way.

Thanks -- that reminds me that I was leaving out the 'buy out of a
sense of perversity' factor. :)

>
>> A far better strategy would be for him to simply buy the ticket himself
>> and hand _that_ to me. I'd pass it along to my dad, who actually does
>> buy lottery tickets and so would check the winning numbers when they're
>> announced.
>
>Seems rather obvious doesn't it.

Leaves an artifact behind. When the bill goes to be destroyed, the
serial number would should it shouldn't be there. The SS might go to
great lengths to track back such a perfect bill, leading them to the
store, leading them to the security camera, leading them to what was
purchased, and landing them on your doorstep with an arrest warrant
for conspiracy to counterfeit since the item bought ended up in your
hands.
--

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:40:51 -0500, Arthur T. <arthur@munged.invalid>
wrote:

>In Message-ID:<0t0sq3dbpdo8mtj17t8ia12b591h885dd5@4ax.com>,
>Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
> <snip>
>>But there is something you can do. They have records from 'our' time
>>and know that tonight's lottery won't have a winner. He's checked the
>>numbers from six different games for the past two weeks (as displayed
>>on a poster at a gas station he passed on his way from the transfer
>>point to your home), and all 552 numbers agree with those on his list,
>>indicating high parallelism with their universe. Since the drawing is
>>within hours and at a considerable distance, it is highly unlikely
>>that his presence will affect the balls drawn.
> <snip>
>>What, if anything, could he say to convince you to spend a dollar to
>>play 'his' numbers for a $65,000,000 lottery?
>
> It doesn't matter. Given infinite parallel universes: in
>some I'll be convinced; in some I won't; in some I'd have played
>those numbers, regardless.

True, but we're talking about *this* you in *this* universe. :)


> Your homework assignment is to read Niven's "All the Myriad
>Ways" (a short story collected in a book of the same name).

Did, a long time ago. Great writing, good philosophical base.
--

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:57:41 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Feb 9, 10:41 pm, Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
>
>> What, if anything, could he say to convince you to spend a dollar to
>> play 'his' numbers for a $65,000,000 lottery?
>
>He wouldn't have to say much to convince me to do _that_, but if he
>wanted something more serious, *then* he would have a big problem.
>After all, the very slim possibility he is telling the truth is enough
>to improve the odds of winning the $65 million significantly.

Added to the fact that madmen are sometimes very lucky?

Thanks!
--

Quadibloc wrote:

> On Feb 9, 10:41 pm, Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
>
>> What, if anything, could he say to convince you to spend a dollar to
>> play 'his' numbers for a $65,000,000 lottery?
>
> He wouldn't have to say much to convince me to do _that_, but if he
> wanted something more serious, *then* he would have a big problem.
> After all, the very slim possibility he is telling the truth is enough
> to improve the odds of winning the $65 million significantly.

Although if the lottery jackpot is $65 million, then -- depending on the
details, of course -- it's probably approaching the point where the
expected value on a bet is (barely) positive, so if one is already a
regular lottery player (which, for instance, I'm not), then I'd imagine
most people might be inclined to try it just for the heck of it.

--
Erik Max Francis && max@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
I won't pretend / I'm good at forgiving
-- Sade

Wayne Throop wrote:

> Come to think of it, though, that mighe well be a disincentive
> to actually buying the ticket. One would have to suspect an attempt
> (for some unknown reason) to implicate one in the conspiracy (possibly
> so the actual culprits could get away with it.
>
> I said before that "if he gave mee the dollar" it might convince me
> to spend a dollar on the lottery. In light of the above possibility,
> I'd have to consider whether he wants to pass me the dollar to spoof
> some anticipated forensic test...

Indeed, I'm with you here. The problem (like many of Wildepad's
hypotheticals) is that the request is so bizarre, so unbelievable, so
unexplained by the people involved, and so lacking in proof, that being
suspicious of their motives would be not only more likely, but probably
appropriate; if it seems too good to be true, it probably is. The
chances that this really _is_ a time traveller with good intentions
surely is far less likely that this is just some con man up to something
and you're not sure what it is. (And even if he has good intentions,
they may still involve unpleasant consequences for you!)

I have no idea what's going on here, but that this guy is unwilling to
tell me (or claims he does not know, but he could be lying) does not put
me at ease. Why me, for one thing? I don't know whether I'm the patsy
or the mark, but it's more likely that I'm being set up to be one of
those than the hero -- even if his story is true!

--
Erik Max Francis && max@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
I won't pretend / I'm good at forgiving
-- Sade

: Wildepad <noreplies>
: Leaves an artifact behind. When the bill goes to be destroyed, the
: serial number would should it shouldn't be there. The SS might go to
: great lengths to track back such a perfect bill, leading them to the
: store, leading them to the security camera, leading them to what was
: purchased, and landing them on your doorstep with an arrest warrant
: for conspiracy to counterfeit since the item bought ended up in your
: hands.

Nonsense. Just go round up a dollar's worth of aluminum cans for
the deposit. Or just beg the dollar in the usual way, so you dont
promise anything and make yourself look like a con man.


Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

John Schilling <schillin@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
> If I *win*, I'm going to have to put a whole lot of thought into what
> comes next. The lottery people can live with the suspense (this is the
> sort of purchase I'd normally make with cash, and I'd make certain of
> it this time).

Keep in mind that winning the lottery is, more or less by definition, not
so unusual that it means something. *Somebody* wins these things, and I
bet there are a lot of winners whose inspiration was weirder than having a
crazy person show up at their door in the morning spouting the numbers.

If he wants to be convincing, and assuming people will listen to him at
all, he needs to give not only the numbers for your lottery, but for
several others as well. Winning a single 1:100000000 lottery is very lucky
for you but it doesn't mean much. Picking the winning numbers for, say,
six of them would indicate that something more is going on.

Also consider that such a pick would make this man interesting but it
doesn't make him *right*. Despite our hanging out in an SF oriented group
and talking about alternate universes and time travel and all that, I
would imagine that when it comes to real life, these things are far away
from our thoughts. It certainly is the case for me. If a crazy person
showed up my door and spouted the winning lottery numbers for enough games
to convince me that it couldn't possibly be luck, I'd certainly have to
think about what might be going on. But the fact that he also tossed out
this insane story about being from the future would be meaningless to this
process, other than showing that he obviously has some mental problems. My
first theory would be that there's some kind of rigging going on with
these lotteries and he was somehow involved before he got all funny in the
head.

This would also make me very cautious about collecting or using my
winnings, since they would effectively be ill-gotten. Some consideration
might need to be given as to the most effective way to ensure that nobody
finds out I even bought a ticket.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:51:39 -0600, Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:

:On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 06:49:02 GMT, throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
:wrote:
:
:>: Wildepad <noreplies>
:>: What, if anything, could he say to convince you to spend a dollar to
:>: play 'his' numbers for a $65,000,000 lottery?
:>
:>He can give me the dollar.
:
:Sorry -- leaving articfacts behind should have been listed as the
:biggest no-no.

Well, second to having a plausible scenario.
--
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV!

George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'

Wayne Throop wrote:

> Nonsense. Just go round up a dollar's worth of aluminum cans for
> the deposit. Or just beg the dollar in the usual way, so you dont
> promise anything and make yourself look like a con man.

Right. Acquiring $1 is trivially easy without using this bullshit
story. The fact that he's using this bullshit story is _less_ likely to
make people give him the dollar (or use it to buy a ticket on their
behalf) -- or, at the very least, make it much harder for them to
convince themselves to do it. So the fact that he's using the story is
even _more_ suspicious, because obviously me buying the ticket and
becoming rich (presuming there's something really going on here --
whether the story is true or not) isn't the end of this deal.

Weirdly coincidental, something very vaguely along these lines happened
to me the other day. I was out having lunch with someone and as we're
returning to my friend's car (so I wasn't driving, but I would have done
the same thing), a slightly but not terribly grubby guy comes up to us
and says, "Hey, I just got out of jail, could you give me a ride
somewhere?" (There are no jails anywhere nearby the area we were in.)
This has to be one of the dumbest possible hitchhiking attempts in the
history of mankind (apart, I suppose, from hitchhiking attempts that
verge on carjacking attempts). After the driver obviously said no, he
walked back to the nearby bus stop, so he wasn't even stuck somewhere,
which quite frankly makes the request even more weird. If he just
wanted, say, more convenient transportation like a cab ride, there are
ways to ask for that which would be infinitely more likely to get a good
result ("Hey, my car just broke down over there, could you spare cab
fare?"). I can't figure out whether to chalk it up to (unwise) honesty
or stupidity or ... something else.

Wait! Maybe he was the time traveller and I blew my chance? Du-ude.

--
Erik Max Francis && max@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Did you ever love somebody / Did you ever really care
-- Cassandra Wilson

On 2008-02-11, Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
> Also, there's an experimental stage: "the smallest effect to produce
> the greatest result."

So far it looks like the greatest result you're going to get from this
smallest effect is "go away".


- Tim

On 2008-02-10, Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
> Since the drawing is within hours and at a considerable distance, it
> is highly unlikely that his presence will affect the balls drawn.

It is also highly unlikely that his numbers will be right.

Yes, the proportion of possible universes that match his so closely
that 12 lottery games come out with the same numbers is microscopic.
However, the proportion of possible universes that match all of those
*and* the next lottery game is a much, much smaller subset of that
again!

Of course, if I was stupid enough to believe his insane story, I'd
probably be stupid enough to not realise that his story doesn't even
make internal sense.


- Tim

On Feb 10, 11:51 pm, Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:26:10 -0800 (PST), DJensen <i_m...@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >It seems to me if this Descendant Command really wants to ensure my
> >time line doesn't follow theirs down the drain, they'd forget about
> >the $65 million and the lottery and take billions from parallel times
> >and use it to fund a full-on organization dedicated to making whatever
> >changes are necessary.
>
> Too many universes to save, too few personnel to manage an invasion.

Wouldn't they also be up to their armpits in parallel doomed universes
also trying to trick people into buying lottery tickets?

--
DJensen

In article <0t0sq3dbpdo8mtj17t8ia12b591h885dd5@4ax.com>, Wildepad
<noreplies> says...
> But there is something you can do. They have records from 'our' time
> and know that tonight's lottery won't have a winner. He's checked the
> numbers from six different games for the past two weeks (as displayed
> on a poster at a gas station he passed on his way from the transfer
> point to your home), and all 552 numbers agree with those on his list,
> indicating high parallelism with their universe. Since the drawing is
> within hours and at a considerable distance, it is highly unlikely
> that his presence will affect the balls drawn.
>
> By chance, you planned to go to the grocery store today anyway, and
> can buy a lottery ticket there.
>
>
> What, if anything, could he say to convince you to spend a dollar to
> play 'his' numbers for a $65,000,000 lottery?
>
>


There are horse races all the time, I would be convinced enough to buy
the lottery ticket if he told me the double on the next race.

"Tim Little" <tim@soprano.little-possums.net> wrote in message
news:slrnfqvt1i.72s.tim@soprano.little-possums.net...
> On 2008-02-10, Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
>> Since the drawing is within hours and at a considerable distance, it
>> is highly unlikely that his presence will affect the balls drawn.
>
> It is also highly unlikely that his numbers will be right.
>
> Yes, the proportion of possible universes that match his so closely
> that 12 lottery games come out with the same numbers is microscopic.
> However, the proportion of possible universes that match all of those
> *and* the next lottery game is a much, much smaller subset of that
> again!
>
> Of course, if I was stupid enough to believe his insane story, I'd
> probably be stupid enough to not realise that his story doesn't even
> make internal sense.
>
>
> - Tim

Then there was that X Files psychic that was consistently one number off
across the board

Wildepad wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 06:49:02 GMT, throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
> wrote:
>
>> : Wildepad <noreplies>
>> : What, if anything, could he say to convince you to spend a dollar to
>> : play 'his' numbers for a $65,000,000 lottery?
>>
>> He can give me the dollar.
>
> Sorry -- leaving articfacts behind should have been listed as the
> biggest no-no.

Why? You explained away the leaving of technical information by saying
that in their other experience it always caused society to self-destruct
for some unknown reason, but how could one counterfeit dollar entering
circulation possibly have any significant effect? People counterfeit
money all the time.

Was he sent through time naked? People could mug him and steal his
future-clothing otherwise.

Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
> A tall young man comes to your door. He speaks with a heavy accent and
> occasionally uses nonsense words. After a few pleasantries, he tells
> you that he's from a parallel universe that is a near duplicate of our
> own except that it's several centuries ahead.
>
> His mission is to change our future. In his universe, a series of wars
> and plagues reduced mankind at one point to less than a thousand
> people. In some universes so closely parallel that there was no
> detectable difference, everyone died.
[...]
> But there is something you can do. They have records from 'our' time
> and know that tonight's lottery won't have a winner. He's checked the
> numbers from six different games for the past two weeks (as displayed
> on a poster at a gas station he passed on his way from the transfer
> point to your home), and all 552 numbers agree with those on his list,
> indicating high parallelism with their universe. Since the drawing is
> within hours and at a considerable distance, it is highly unlikely
> that his presence will affect the balls drawn.
>
> By chance, you planned to go to the grocery store today anyway, and
> can buy a lottery ticket there.
>
> What, if anything, could he say to convince you to spend a dollar to
> play 'his' numbers for a $65,000,000 lottery?

A dollar? And from a reputable lottery? I wouldn't believe a word
he said, and consider it either practical joke or a lunatic, but I
suppose he deserves a chance to prove himself, and if it's only a
dollar, then why not?

> What he can't do:
>
> He cannot allow you to witness him leaving. The transfer point is in a
> small chamber in a cave, and once there, he may have to wait a few
> minutes or a few hours before the transfer is activated. When it
> happens, the effect will injure anyone close by and damage any
> electronics. You could follow him into the cave, wait at a safe
> distance in the main alley until its over, and look for other exits
> afterwards, but doing so will make you too late to buy a ticket.

Like I'd be willing to go to that much trouble to save a dollar. The
man is clearly either insane or a prankster, but as long as all he's
asking from me is to buy a cheap lottery ticket (preferably without
him knowing that I did), that's no problem. Anything beyond that is
out of the question, and there's very little he could say to convince
me otherwise without cold hard proof.


mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel

Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:57:41 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 9, 10:41 pm, Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
>>
>>> What, if anything, could he say to convince you to spend a dollar to
>>> play 'his' numbers for a $65,000,000 lottery?
>>
>>He wouldn't have to say much to convince me to do _that_, but if he
>>wanted something more serious, *then* he would have a big problem.
>>After all, the very slim possibility he is telling the truth is enough
>>to improve the odds of winning the $65 million significantly.
>
> Added to the fact that madmen are sometimes very lucky?

Since when is that a fact?


mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel

Wayne Throop <throopw@sheol.org> wrote:
> : Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
> : After all, the very slim possibility he is telling the truth is enough
> : to improve the odds of winning the $65 million significantly.
>
> "Significantly"? I don't quite see that.

Then consider this: with a $65 million jackpot and $1 tickers, chances
of winning the jackpot are less then 1/65 million. Let's say it's
0.00000001 (and that's probably generous). Now what do you think the
chances are that this man is speaking the truth? 0.001? 0.000001? I
completely agree that he's most likely lying or insane, and I'd give
the combined odds of that 0.999999, but that still leaves a 0.000001
chance that he is actually from the future. This chance is 100 times
bigger than the chance of winning the lottery, so my chances of
winning just went up 10000%! You bet I'm gonna buy that lottery ticket,
but I still won't expect to win.

> Hm. You know, if he were
> privy to information from a conspiracy to fix the lottery, then I suppose
> *that* would "imprive the odds". But that seems to be one of the few
> scenarios worth evaluating where there'd be an increased chance.
>
> Come to think of it, though, that mighe well be a disincentive
> to actually buying the ticket. One would have to suspect an attempt
> (for some unknown reason) to implicate one in the conspiracy (possibly
> so the actual culprits could get away with it.

What would they be getting away with if I won $65 million? I'll grant
you that the chance that he's in some sort of conspiracy is vastly
bigger than the chance that he's from the future (but not as big as
the chance that he's a loon), but I don't see how me winning $65
million in a bona fide lottery would implicate me in anything.


mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel

: mcv <mcvmcv@xs4all.nl>
: Then consider this: with a $65 million jackpot and $1 tickers, chances
: of winning the jackpot are less then 1/65 million. Let's say it's
: 0.00000001 (and that's probably generous). Now what do you think the
: chances are that this man is speaking the truth? 0.001? 0.000001?

Considerably less than that.

: What would they be getting away with if I won $65 million?

Just because I can't see what their angle is, doesn't make me
confident that there is no such angle.


Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:26:10 -0800 (PST), DJensen <i_m0nk@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>It seems to me if this Descendant Command really wants to ensure my
>>time line doesn't follow theirs down the drain, they'd forget about
>>the $65 million and the lottery and take billions from parallel times
>>and use it to fund a full-on organization dedicated to making whatever
>>changes are necessary.
>
> Too many universes to save, too few personnel to manage an invasion.
>
> Also, there's an experimental stage: "the smallest effect to produce
> the greatest result."

He doesn't have to convince me before the lottery draw. Without
convincing proof, there's nothing he can say to convince me. But if
he buys me a lottery ticket, tells me this story, and it turns out
my ticket wins, well, I might at least be willing to listen to him
again. If he tells me what stock to buy with the money he effectively
gave me, I might doo that. Not will all of the money, but with part
of it, perhaps. If he's right, this should make me a multibillionaire
within a fairly short time.

I still won't believe he's actually from the future, but if he says
wars and plagues will destroy the earth, I'm certainly willing to
spend quite a lot of my new found wealth on fighting those wars and
plagues.

But if he asks me to now spend this money on something I consider
bad, evil and harmful, then I'll probably still kick him out,
ungrateful bastard that I am.


mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel

Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Wildepad wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 06:49:02 GMT, throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> : Wildepad <noreplies>
>>> : What, if anything, could he say to convince you to spend a dollar to
>>> : play 'his' numbers for a $65,000,000 lottery?
>>>
>>> He can give me the dollar.
>>
>> Sorry -- leaving articfacts behind should have been listed as the
>> biggest no-no.
>
> Why? You explained away the leaving of technical information by saying
> that in their other experience it always caused society to self-destruct
> for some unknown reason, but how could one counterfeit dollar entering
> circulation possibly have any significant effect? People counterfeit
> money all the time.

Apparently because he thinks the Secret Service is so awesome that they
will detect any duplicate serial numbers in circulation with great
rapidity and this will quickly result in your identification and arrest
for counterfeiting.

Seriously, that's what the man said.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

mcv <mcvmcv@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Wayne Throop <throopw@sheol.org> wrote:
>> : Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
>> : After all, the very slim possibility he is telling the truth is enough
>> : to improve the odds of winning the $65 million significantly.
>>
>> "Significantly"? I don't quite see that.
>
> Then consider this: with a $65 million jackpot and $1 tickers, chances
> of winning the jackpot are less then 1/65 million. Let's say it's
> 0.00000001 (and that's probably generous). Now what do you think the
> chances are that this man is speaking the truth? 0.001? 0.000001? I
> completely agree that he's most likely lying or insane, and I'd give
> the combined odds of that 0.999999, but that still leaves a 0.000001
> chance that he is actually from the future. This chance is 100 times
> bigger than the chance of winning the lottery, so my chances of
> winning just went up 10000%! You bet I'm gonna buy that lottery ticket,
> but I still won't expect to win.

Just out of curiosity, how did you decide on that probability? You think
that there's a one-in-a-million chance that he's actually from the future.
There are probably a million people on the planet who think they're from
the future. Do you really think it's likely that one of them is *right*
about it?

One in a million seems inconceivably generous to me. Despite hanging out
in this group, I'm not particularly SF-credulous in real life (and why
should I be? These sorts of things just don't happen) and I would put the
chances that he's telling the truth at something more like one in one
quintillion, or lower yet.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 08:38:48 GMT, "Joetheone"
<joetheone@dontchabespamminme.com> wrote:

:
:"Tim Little" <tim@soprano.little-possums.net> wrote in message
:news:slrnfqvt1i.72s.tim@soprano.little-possums.net...
:> On 2008-02-10, Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
:>> Since the drawing is within hours and at a considerable distance, it
:>> is highly unlikely that his presence will affect the balls drawn.
:>
:> It is also highly unlikely that his numbers will be right.
:>
:> Yes, the proportion of possible universes that match his so closely
:> that 12 lottery games come out with the same numbers is microscopic.
:> However, the proportion of possible universes that match all of those
:> *and* the next lottery game is a much, much smaller subset of that
:> again!
:>
:> Of course, if I was stupid enough to believe his insane story, I'd
:> probably be stupid enough to not realise that his story doesn't even
:> make internal sense.
:>
:>
:> - Tim
:
:Then there was that X Files psychic that was consistently one number off
:across the board
:
Clyde Bruckman, played by Peter Boyle, in the
best X-Files episode evar.

His only power was knowing how and when people
would die.
--
"It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a
democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
country."
-Hermann Goering

George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.

mcv wrote:

> Then consider this: with a $65 million jackpot and $1 tickers, chances
> of winning the jackpot are less then 1/65 million.

No, depends on how many people play, and what distribution of numbers
they choose.

> Let's say it's
> 0.00000001 (and that's probably generous). Now what do you think the
> chances are that this man is speaking the truth? 0.001? 0.000001? I
> completely agree that he's most likely lying or insane, and I'd give
> the combined odds of that 0.999999, but that still leaves a 0.000001
> chance that he is actually from the future. This chance is 100 times
> bigger than the chance of winning the lottery, so my chances of
> winning just went up 10000%! You bet I'm gonna buy that lottery ticket,
> but I still won't expect to win.

But you've just made up different numbers here. Make up different
numbers, and it's _less_ likely you'll win, not more. This isn't an
argument because you're just plugging in numbers that will give you the
result you want.

And you're missing an obvious third possibility: that the ticket _will_
win, but not for the reasons he's saying. His story is too outrageous
to believe, but maybe he's right for the wrong reasons. Maybe they've
rigged the lottery but are too close to the process to try to collect it
themselves and need a patsy. Maybe you'll find yourself blackmailed and
threatened for the rest of your life. Maybe you'll be murdered and
someone else will assume your identity. Maybe countless other nasty,
unpleasant things that you can't guess off the top of your head. You
don't know how likely these are, but surely they're more likely than him
really being a time traveller.

Besides, the criteria for whether it's a profitable bet is not whether
it merely increases chances that the ticket will be good, but whether it
increases them enough that the wager has positive expectation.

> What would they be getting away with if I won $65 million? I'll grant
> you that the chance that he's in some sort of conspiracy is vastly
> bigger than the chance that he's from the future (but not as big as
> the chance that he's a loon), but I don't see how me winning $65
> million in a bona fide lottery would implicate me in anything.

If he and his colleagues have rigged the lottery and given you the
winning numbers and told you to buy a ticket, you're an accomplice.
And, as I point out above, there are other, more sinister, possibilities
you'd have to consider.

--
Erik Max Francis && max@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
I woke up this morning / You were the first thing on my mind
-- India Arie

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:08:53 GMT, throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
wrote:

>I said before that "if he gave mee the dollar" it might convince me
>to spend a dollar on the lottery. In light of the above possibility,
>I'd have to consider whether he wants to pass me the dollar to spoof
>some anticipated forensic test...

There are so many possibilities, some good, some bad, some very bad,
which are much more likely than that he is telling the truth, that I
wonder how many people who might have normally bought a ticket
wouldn't after being visited.
--

Wildepad wrote:

> It's not the effect the one bill, counterfeit or not (it could be a
> relic), would have, it's the problems you would have explaining
> why/where/how you acquired it, and it would negate your being able to
> claim the prize (any impropriety in the purchase is cause to deny the
> payout).

You act as if $1 is extremely hard to acquire in the modern world. Walk
up to someone and ask for it. Or, just as trivial, bring something back
with you and sell it.

Further, you seem to think that individual bills are far more traceable
than they invariably are.

--
Erik Max Francis && max@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
I never vote for anyone. I always vote against.
-- W.C. Fields

Erik Max Francis wrote:
> Wildepad wrote:
>
>> It's not the effect the one bill, counterfeit or not (it could be a
>> relic), would have, it's the problems you would have explaining
>> why/where/how you acquired it, and it would negate your being able to
>> claim the prize (any impropriety in the purchase is cause to deny the
>> payout).
>
> You act as if $1 is extremely hard to acquire in the modern world. Walk
> up to someone and ask for it. Or, just as trivial, bring something back
> with you and sell it.
>
> Further, you seem to think that individual bills are far more traceable
> than they invariably are.

I'm Canadian, our dollar coins don't have serial numbers. You can't even
track them in principle. I imagine in the US the same effect could be
achieved by using four quarters instead of a dollar bill.

Once again it seems like the goal of the scenario isn't what was
originally claimed. If these future-people genuinely wanted to change
the past they'd drop these pointless restrictions. Seems more likely
that they're just interested in finding out how past-people react to
various absurd situations instead.

Wildepad wrote:
> Hmm . . . I don't see how that would possibly violate anything. That
> information could not be used to any advantage if he's captured, it
> wouldn't require any equipment, and it would be fairly convincing to
> anyone who knows how to instantly find race results.

Who's doing the capturing, anyway? If there's some organization out
there that actually believes that this person is from the future, and
that has enough resources and influence to be able to kidnap people with
impunity, it seems to me that this is exactly the organization you'd
_want_ to go to. Give them information about the upcoming disaster and
it'll be in their own best interests to work to avert it.

Bryan Derksen wrote:

> I'm Canadian, our dollar coins don't have serial numbers. You can't even
> track them in principle. I imagine in the US the same effect could be
> achieved by using four quarters instead of a dollar bill.

Right. But it's even more basic than that. I'm not a lottery player,
but I see people buying state lottery tickets in the 7-Eleven, for
instance. The money taken in exchange for a lottery ticket is just put
into the regular till; it's not specially notated, put it any special
place, or anything of the kind. Through the normal course of business,
who paid for which lottery ticket with which bill (or coins) is
completely lost information; it is basically untraceable.

Even if you could identify the batch of money in which the lottery
ticket was purchased (lottery tickets identify where the ticket was
purchased, and you somehow magically get there before they've done their
periodic run to the bank), you'd still have no way of knowing which
actual bill(s) or coin(s) was involved with purchasing _that_ ticket.

--
Erik Max Francis && max@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
The education of a poker player is never complete until he dies.
-- Doyle Brunson

On 2008-02-11, Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
> It's a subset, but not necessarily "much smaller" since they would
> be targeting universes that are as closely parallel as possible.

It is definitely a much smaller subset.


> Checking the past numbers is a way to check that they didn't happen
> to hit a skew.

That does change the eventual probability, but we don't know by how
much. Within the set of universes in which the last 500 numbers
matched, they are still aiming for the 1-in-100-million subset in
which the next numbers are also correct.

The accuracy of their targetting multiplies the chance, but if they
find it worth checking at all, then clearly they *don't* think that
their targetting is 99.999999% reliable. (The chance of a human
making a mistake when doing the checking is vastly greater than that)


This isn't to say that it's not worth putting a ticket in if you
believe in the story: even as low as 10x the chance of success still
gives a very positive expectation for your dollar, even though it
could still be a one in ten million chance of winning.

The problem of course is the much higher combined probabilities of the
huge variety of nasty alternative explanations.


- Tim

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:24:42 -0600, Michael Ash <mike@mikeash.com> wrote:

>John Schilling <schillin@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>> If I *win*, I'm going to have to put a whole lot of thought into what
>> comes next. The lottery people can live with the suspense (this is the
>> sort of purchase I'd normally make with cash, and I'd make certain of
>> it this time).

>Keep in mind that winning the lottery is, more or less by definition, not
>so unusual that it means something. *Somebody* wins these things, and I
>bet there are a lot of winners whose inspiration was weirder than having a
>crazy person show up at their door in the morning spouting the numbers.

It's not the wierdness that matters, it's the danger. Anything that
produces advance knowledge of actual winning lottery numbers, should
be presumed dangerous unless proven otherwise. The harmless wierdos
will be giving out *losing* numbers, and we've already moved beyond
that sub-scenario here.

If it actually is a winning ticket, the most likely scenario is that
it's part of someone else's lottery-rigging scheme - maybe a field test,
to see if the normal post-win scrutiny actually will reveal the clever
hack in the system.


>This would also make me very cautious about collecting or using my
>winnings, since they would effectively be ill-gotten. Some consideration
>might need to be given as to the most effective way to ensure that nobody
>finds out I even bought a ticket.

Precisely. Pay cash, don't go to a store where you'll be recognized,
and if you win, first thing you do is hire a lawyer.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.Schilling@alumni.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 01:41:14 GMT, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen@shaw.ca>
wrote:

:Erik Max Francis wrote:
:> Wildepad wrote:
:>
:>> It's not the effect the one bill, counterfeit or not (it could be a
:>> relic), would have, it's the problems you would have explaining
:>> why/where/how you acquired it, and it would negate your being able to
:>> claim the prize (any impropriety in the purchase is cause to deny the
:>> payout).
:>
:> You act as if $1 is extremely hard to acquire in the modern world. Walk
:> up to someone and ask for it. Or, just as trivial, bring something back
:> with you and sell it.
:>
:> Further, you seem to think that individual bills are far more traceable
:> than they invariably are.
:
:I'm Canadian, our dollar coins don't have serial numbers. You can't even
:track them in principle. I imagine in the US the same effect could be
:achieved by using four quarters instead of a dollar bill.
:
:Once again it seems like the goal of the scenario isn't what was
:originally claimed. If these future-people genuinely wanted to change
:the past they'd drop these pointless restrictions. Seems more likely
:that they're just interested in finding out how past-people react to
:various absurd situations instead.

Or, more likely, they're psychology students
interested in finding out how present-people react to
various absurd situations.
--
"The truths of mathematics describe a bright and clear universe,
exquisite and beautiful in its structure, in comparison with
which the physical world is turbid and confused."

-Eulogy for G.H.Hardy

George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:42:41 -0600, Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:

:On 11 Feb 2008 16:18:40 GMT, mcv <mcvmcv@xs4all.nl> wrote:
:
:>Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
:>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:57:41 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
:>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
:>>
:>>>On Feb 9, 10:41 pm, Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
:>>>
:>>>> What, if anything, could he say to convince you to spend a dollar to
:>>>> play 'his' numbers for a $65,000,000 lottery?
:>>>
:>>>He wouldn't have to say much to convince me to do _that_, but if he
:>>>wanted something more serious, *then* he would have a big problem.
:>>>After all, the very slim possibility he is telling the truth is enough
:>>>to improve the odds of winning the $65 million significantly.
:>>
:>> Added to the fact that madmen are sometimes very lucky?
:>
:>Since when is that a fact?
:
:It's implied by so many of them surviving disasters that would kill a
:normal person. :)

There's a selection bias there.
--
/buddha@nirvana.net/h:k

George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'

:: Unfortunately, they usually know the day after the drawing who won --
:: virtually every machine is within view of a security camera, and when
:: there's a high enough payout, they check the tapes to make sure the
:: ticket was sold legally.

I would wonder people keep the tapes long enough "virtually every" time.

: John Schilling <schillin@spock.usc.edu>
: Virtually all banks have security cameras, virtually no bank robbers
: actually wear masks, and yet most bank robbers are not captured the
: day after the robbery. Or ever, except incidentally for some other
: crime. Security-camera footage is rather less useful than you might
: imagine for identifying random strangers.

Gasp! You mean they can't just zoom in and enhance the picture and
get fingerprints, or retinal prints, or maybe read the DNA directly?
I'm pretty sure I've seen that on them CSI documentaries.

Interestinly, watching "Bones" reruns, one of the characters scoffed at
being able to enhance to such an extent... and yet, later in the same
show, they enhanced to a ridiculous extent. Apparently the cliche is
addictive to hollyweird directors/writers, and they can't keep away from
it even when they've just *said* it was stupid. I also like the
3d-open-air imaging. Sigh.


Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

George W Harris wrote:

> Or, more likely, they're psychology students
> interested in finding out how present-people react to
> various absurd situations.

Sure, but that's just part of the 1 - 10^-n probability that the story
is bullshit and the numbers are no good which has already been noted.

--
Erik Max Francis && max@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Because a bullet has no name / And sees no face
-- Skee-Lo

John Schilling <schillin@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
> Virtually all banks have security cameras, virtually no bank robbers
> actually wear masks, and yet most bank robbers are not captured the
> day after the robbery. Or ever, except incidentally for some other
> crime. Security-camera footage is rather less useful than you might
> imagine for identifying random strangers.

Just out of curiosity, do you have a cite for that? I was under the
impression that bank robbery had a pretty low success rate, long-term. A
bit of searching turns up this FBI document:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/specialreport/05-SRbankrobbery.html

It claims a 57.7% clearance rate for bank robbery in 2001, which I
understand to mean that this is the percentage which resulted in the
arrest of the robber(s). Of course a lot of these *could* have happened
after being arrested for some other crime.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

On Feb 11, 11:43 am, mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:26:10 -0800 (PST), DJensen <i_m...@yahoo.ca>
> > wrote:
>
> >>It seems to me if this Descendant Command really wants to ensure my
> >>time line doesn't follow theirs down the drain, they'd forget about
> >>the $65 million and the lottery and take billions from parallel times
> >>and use it to fund a full-on organization dedicated to making whatever
> >>changes are necessary.
>
> > Too many universes to save, too few personnel to manage an invasion.
>
> > Also, there's an experimental stage: "the smallest effect to produce
> > the greatest result."
>
> He doesn't have to convince me before the lottery draw. Without
> convincing proof, there's nothing he can say to convince me. But if
> he buys me a lottery ticket, tells me this story, and it turns out
> my ticket wins, well, I might at least be willing to listen to him
> again. If he tells me what stock to buy with the money he effectively
> gave me, I might doo that. Not will all of the money, but with part
> of it, perhaps. If he's right, this should make me a multibillionaire
> within a fairly short time.

More interesting would be if investing in that stock butterflies it to
lose value, trigger a recession, hit peak oil sooner, or something
along that line. Perhaps these smarty pants from the future have
discovered that the only sustainable solution is to make everyone live
Amish-like.

--
DJensen

On 2008-02-12, John Schilling <schillin@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
> And I'm leery of any claim to being 99.9999999+% accurate in
> divining the motives of complete strangers on the basis of a brief
> conversation.

One doesn't have to be 99.9999999+% accurate in divining their
motives. It's not a bet of $1 vs unknown probability of increasing
your odds. It's a bet of $1 + unknown probability of ending up in
jail, dead, swindled, or something else bad vs unknown probability of
increasing your odds.

In fact even if his story is *true* (with a priori ridiculously low
probability), there's an unknown probability of ending up dead, in
jail, etc. And without even saving the world.


- Tim

Erik Max Francis <max@alcyone.com> wrote:
> Wayne Throop wrote:
> > Nonsense. Just go round up a dollar's worth of aluminum cans for
> > the deposit. Or just beg the dollar in the usual way, so you dont
> > promise anything and make yourself look like a con man.

> Right. Acquiring $1 is trivially easy without using this bullshit
> story.

Let's look at it this way: If you were sent back to ancient Rome with
an inexact grasp of the language and nothing else, how would you acquire
one unit of...whatever the currency they used back then? And you have to do
it in a way that carries no risk that you'll be apprehended or delayed in
getting back to your retrieval spot.

I'd buy the lottery ticket. It's a negligible risk and a potentially
huge gain. Not just monetary -- if the ticket wins, then I'd have proof
that time travel is possible and that the world is headed over a cliff.
I'd probably donate a large portion of the money to organizations that I'd
think would have a chance to prevent the catastrophe.

Or, if I could wheedle enough information about time travel from him,
I'd throw money into inventing it.

And if the ticket doesn't win, I'm out one buck, thinking, "Well, I hope
that nutcase got some professional help." No big deal.

.... ...
Remus Shepherd <remus@panix.com>
Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/remus_shepherd/
Comic: http://indepos.comicgenesis.com/

Wayne Throop wrote:
> Gasp! You mean they can't just zoom in and enhance the picture and
> get fingerprints, or retinal prints, or maybe read the DNA directly?
> I'm pretty sure I've seen that on them CSI documentaries.

The worst case of this that I can recall actually seeing was one CSI
episode where they zoomed in on a picture until they could get a clear
image of the reflection of the person taking the picture in the
subject's eye.

I don't watch CSI as a general rule, I've just caught a few random
episodes. It's a comedy, right? Some sort of Police Squad thing, except
played straight?

Remus Shepherd wrote:

> Let's look at it this way: If you were sent back to ancient Rome with
> an inexact grasp of the language and nothing else, how would you acquire
> one unit of...whatever the currency they used back then? And you have to do
> it in a way that carries no risk that you'll be apprehended or delayed in
> getting back to your retrieval spot.

But that's not the hypothetical. The guy is trying to convince you he's
a time traveller, for cryin' out loud. That's a non-starter if he's not
a fluent speaker, and "an inexact grasp of the language" was not part of
the hypothetical.

> I'd buy the lottery ticket. It's a negligible risk and a potentially
> huge gain. Not just monetary -- if the ticket wins, then I'd have proof
> that time travel is possible and that the world is headed over a cliff.

This is faulty reasoning. If the ticket wins, all that demonstrates is
that he knew what the winning numbers were (at least, if we rule out the
coincidence that he didn't know or was guessing, but they hit anyway,
which is reasonable). It _does not_ demonstrate that his story is true,
or even that time travel is possible.

Occam's razor applies here: What is more likely, that time travel is
real and somehow a time traveller from the future wants you to become
rich, or someone found a way to rig the lottery and is involving you for
some reason?

It is surely vastly more likely that he came by knowledge of the numbers
through other means than his story being true. If so, you're either a
co-conspirator, a patsy, or a mark. And potentially in danger once you
accept the offer.

> And if the ticket doesn't win, I'm out one buck, thinking, "Well, I hope
> that nutcase got some professional help." No big deal.

If the numbers aren't real, which is vastly the more likely case, then
you're wasting your time and could have spent it better doing other
things. If the numbers are real, then you've won the lottery but have
more likely exposed yourself to unknown, but possibly serious, risk than
that this guy's bullshit story is true.

There's no good reason to accept the offer.

--
Erik Max Francis && max@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
-- Sigmund Freud

George W Harris <gharrus@mundsprung.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:42:41 -0600, Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
> :On 11 Feb 2008 16:18:40 GMT, mcv <mcvmcv@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> :>Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
> :>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:57:41 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
> :>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> :>>
> :>>>On Feb 9, 10:41 pm, Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
> :>>>
> :>>>> What, if anything, could he say to convince you to spend a dollar to
> :>>>> play 'his' numbers for a $65,000,000 lottery?
> :>>>
> :>>>He wouldn't have to say much to convince me to do _that_, but if he
> :>>>wanted something more serious, *then* he would have a big problem.
> :>>>After all, the very slim possibility he is telling the truth is enough
> :>>>to improve the odds of winning the $65 million significantly.
> :>>
> :>> Added to the fact that madmen are sometimes very lucky?
> :>
> :>Since when is that a fact?
> :
> :It's implied by so many of them surviving disasters that would kill a
> :normal person. :)
>
> There's a selection bias there.

Two options immediately spring to mind: surviving a disaster can traumatise
to the point of insanity, and madmen may be more likely to imagine a
disaster and end up believing it.


mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel

Erik Max Francis <max@alcyone.com> wrote:
> mcv wrote:
>
>> Then consider this: with a $65 million jackpot and $1 tickers, chances
>> of winning the jackpot are less then 1/65 million.
>
> No, depends on how many people play, and what distribution of numbers
> they choose.

If the chance is not less than 1/65 million, the lottery is losing money.
Not a very smart way to run a lottery.

>> Let's say it's
>> 0.00000001 (and that's probably generous). Now what do you think the
>> chances are that this man is speaking the truth? 0.001? 0.000001? I
>> completely agree that he's most likely lying or insane, and I'd give
>> the combined odds of that 0.999999, but that still leaves a 0.000001
>> chance that he is actually from the future. This chance is 100 times
>> bigger than the chance of winning the lottery, so my chances of
>> winning just went up 10000%! You bet I'm gonna buy that lottery ticket,
>> but I still won't expect to win.
>
> But you've just made up different numbers here. Make up different
> numbers, and it's _less_ likely you'll win, not more. This isn't an
> argument because you're just plugging in numbers that will give you the
> result you want.

How do *you* estimate the chance that some completely bizarre story
that completely conflicts with your worldview is actually true? I'm
always open to the possibility that my worldview is completely wrong,
and if someone cares enough to come and tell me that story in person,
I'm certainly willing to grant him a chance of one in a million that
he's right. At worst, my chances of winning the lottery are unchanged,
at best, they might be significantly increased.

There is no chance that such an unlikely story will significantly
reduce my chances of winning the lottery, because there's still the
(estimated) 0.999999 chance that he's a nutcase and my lottery ticket
will have the same chance of winning as every other. If he predicts
a sure loser, that will reduce my chances of winning the lottery by
0.000001 * 0.00000001 = 0.00000000000001. I'm really not going to
worry about that.

If you estimate the chance that he does know what he's talking about
much smaller than the chance of winning the lottery, then it's just
a regular lottery ticket with the same tiny chance of winning as
every other. The only way my chance of winning the lottery can be
reduced by listening to this guy is if the chance of him knowing
what he's talking about (and lying about it) is very close to 1.

> And you're missing an obvious third possibility: that the ticket _will_
> win, but not for the reasons he's saying. His story is too outrageous
> to believe, but maybe he's right for the wrong reasons. Maybe they've
> rigged the lottery but are too close to the process to try to collect it
> themselves and need a patsy. Maybe you'll find yourself blackmailed and
> threatened for the rest of your life. Maybe you'll be murdered and
> someone else will assume your identity. Maybe countless other nasty,
> unpleasant things that you can't guess off the top of your head. You
> don't know how likely these are, but surely they're more likely than him
> really being a time traveller.

Seems rather farfetched for such a mundane scheme. If they have the power
to rig a reputable lottery, I don't see what they'd need a patsy for.
They'd seriously complicate their crime by making it depend on blackmail
or identity theft. Besides, you can blackmail and steal identities from
lottery winners without rigging the lottery.

If you can predict lottery winners, you'd better make sure the winning
ticket is bought by someone you can control, and not some complete
stranger. Considering my lack of criminal/blackmailable history, I'd
find it less likely that an organised crime ring chose me as a patsy
they can control than that some bum on my doorstep is actually from
the future.

> Besides, the criteria for whether it's a profitable bet is not whether
> it merely increases chances that the ticket will be good, but whether it
> increases them enough that the wager has positive expectation.

We're talking about a $1 ticket here. Just the story itself is worth more
than that.

>> What would they be getting away with if I won $65 million? I'll grant
>> you that the chance that he's in some sort of conspiracy is vastly
>> bigger than the chance that he's from the future (but not as big as
>> the chance that he's a loon), but I don't see how me winning $65
>> million in a bona fide lottery would implicate me in anything.
>
> If he and his colleagues have rigged the lottery and given you the
> winning numbers and told you to buy a ticket, you're an accomplice.

I don't see how. I know nothing about the rigging of the lottery and I
don't know any of the riggers. All I know is that some bum told me a
bizarre story and I decided to buy a ticket just for laughs.

> And, as I point out above, there are other, more sinister, possibilities
> you'd have to consider.

But you're only looking at it from my point of view, and not from the
criminals' point of view. Why the hell would they even need a patsy,
and why would they choose me for it? It's their motives that don't
make sense, and that has nothing to do with the physical possibility.


mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel

Michael Ash <mike@mikeash.com> wrote:
> mcv <mcvmcv@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> Wayne Throop <throopw@sheol.org> wrote:
>>> : Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
>>> : After all, the very slim possibility he is telling the truth is enough
>>> : to improve the odds of winning the $65 million significantly.
>>>
>>> "Significantly"? I don't quite see that.
>>
>> Then consider this: with a $65 million jackpot and $1 tickers, chances
>> of winning the jackpot are less then 1/65 million. Let's say it's
>> 0.00000001 (and that's probably generous). Now what do you think the
>> chances are that this man is speaking the truth? 0.001? 0.000001? I
>> completely agree that he's most likely lying or insane, and I'd give
>> the combined odds of that 0.999999, but that still leaves a 0.000001
>> chance that he is actually from the future. This chance is 100 times
>> bigger than the chance of winning the lottery, so my chances of
>> winning just went up 10000%! You bet I'm gonna buy that lottery ticket,
>> but I still won't expect to win.
>
> Just out of curiosity, how did you decide on that probability? You think
> that there's a one-in-a-million chance that he's actually from the future.
> There are probably a million people on the planet who think they're from
> the future. Do you really think it's likely that one of them is *right*
> about it?

Not in the least, but that's not how probabilities work, although it's
impossible to get the probabilities of complex situations like this
correct intuitively.
The basic probability that we're talking about here is the chance that
time travel is even possible. According to my current world view, there's
no chance in hell, but my current world view could easily be wrong. I
estimate that chance well over 0.01. The chance that time travel is
possible? No idea, but if someone like Stephen Hawking has seriously
considered the possibility, who am I to say that chance is smaller
than 0.001?

Now, given the chance that time travel is possible, what's the chance
that mankind will seriously **** up and nearly wipe themselves out?
Pretty big IMO. We've seen several serious scenarios for doing that
in the past decades, so I'm certainly willing to grant this a 0.1
chance. Considering this scenario, what's the chance that someone
will travel back in time and try to prevent it? Given that time
travel is possible? Well, they need to discover it first, ofcourse,
but if it's possible, chances are it will be discovered sooner or
later.

So, given all of that, what's the chance that they'll pick *me* for
their bizarre mission to save the world? Tiny ofcourse, but better
than average, I suspect. I'm smart, educated, open to questioning what
I believe in, willing to spend money on good causes rather than indulge
in hedonism, and I live in a part of the world with better than average
access to whatever resources might be necessary for such a mission.

The end result is bound to be a ridiculously small chance, but given
that someone is at my door telling me this increases the chance. Not
to any actually likely odds, but to, I don't know, wild guess:
0.000001? The man at my door is much easier explained by the theory
that he's delusional, but this unlikely scenario also suits these
events remarkably well. It'd be stupid to deny that, even if there's
still 99.9999% chance it's nonsense.

> One in a million seems inconceivably generous to me. Despite hanging out
> in this group, I'm not particularly SF-credulous in real life (and why
> should I be? These sorts of things just don't happen) and I would put the
> chances that he's telling the truth at something more like one in one
> quintillion, or lower yet.

I'm not particularly SF-credulous in real life either, and I agree
that these things just don't happen, but it'd be unbelievably arrogant
to insist that there's no chance that my view of the world is the only
possibility, and that there's not even 0.1% chance that I'm wrong.

I'm estimating the chances that I'm wrong in some of the things I
believe in much higher than that. Well over 50%, actually (I just
don't know *which* things I'd be wrong at). I estimate the chances
of time travelling being possible much smaller ofcourse, but mainly
because if time travel was possible, we (and history) should be
flooded with time travellers. Mankind wiping itself out shortly
after the discovery of time travel would explain the lack of time
travellers quite well, however, making it possibly one of the more
realistic (though still very unlikely) time travel scenarios.

I'm sticking with my original assessment of the situation: this
story is well worth my $1.


mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel

DJensen <i_m0nk@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 11:43 am, mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:26:10 -0800 (PST), DJensen <i_m...@yahoo.ca>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>It seems to me if this Descendant Command really wants to ensure my
>> >>time line doesn't follow theirs down the drain, they'd forget about
>> >>the $65 million and the lottery and take billions from parallel times
>> >>and use it to fund a full-on organization dedicated to making whatever
>> >>changes are necessary.
>>
>> > Too many universes to save, too few personnel to manage an invasion.
>>
>> > Also, there's an experimental stage: "the smallest effect to produce
>> > the greatest result."
>>
>> He doesn't have to convince me before the lottery draw. Without
>> convincing proof, there's nothing he can say to convince me. But if
>> he buys me a lottery ticket, tells me this story, and it turns out
>> my ticket wins, well, I might at least be willing to listen to him
>> again. If he tells me what stock to buy with the money he effectively
>> gave me, I might doo that. Not will all of the money, but with part
>> of it, perhaps. If he's right, this should make me a multibillionaire
>> within a fairly short time.
>
> More interesting would be if investing in that stock butterflies it to
> lose value, trigger a recession, hit peak oil sooner, or something
> along that line. Perhaps these smarty pants from the future have
> discovered that the only sustainable solution is to make everyone live
> Amish-like.

Could be, and if these guys are so sure of it that their predictions
actually work, then I'm not unwilling to be a tool in that. I'm not
a big fan of industrial capitalism as it is, although it would kinda
suck if the whole world got angry at me for ruining their economic
system.


mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel

mcv skreiv:

> Not in the least, but that's not how probabilities work, although it's
> impossible to get the probabilities of complex situations like this
> correct intuitively.

True.

> The basic probability that we're talking about here is the chance that
> time travel is even possible. According to my current world view, there's
> no chance in hell, but my current world view could easily be wrong. I
> estimate that chance well over 0.01.

A randomly picked number.

> The chance that time travel is
> possible? No idea, but if someone like Stephen Hawking has seriously
> considered the possibility, who am I to say that chance is smaller
> than 0.001?

Another randomly picked number.

> Now, given the chance that time travel is possible, what's the chance
> that mankind will seriously **** up and nearly wipe themselves out?
> Pretty big IMO. We've seen several serious scenarios for doing that
> in the past decades, so I'm certainly willing to grant this a 0.1
> chance.

Another randomly picked number.

> The end result is bound to be a ridiculously small chance, but given
> that someone is at my door telling me this increases the chance. Not
> to any actually likely odds, but to, I don't know, wild guess:
> 0.000001?

Another randomly picked number.

> The man at my door is much easier explained by the theory
> that he's delusional, but this unlikely scenario also suits these
> events remarkably well. It'd be stupid to deny that, even if there's
> still 99.9999% chance it's nonsense.

Another randomly picked number.

> I'm not particularly SF-credulous in real life either, and I agree
> that these things just don't happen, but it'd be unbelievably arrogant
> to insist that there's no chance that my view of the world is the only
> possibility, and that there's not even 0.1% chance that I'm wrong.

All you argue is that if you are allowed to pick any collection of
random numbers and multiply them with eachothers, then you can arrive at
whatever answer you want to arrive at. This is true but not really very
informative.

You also limit the downside to losing $1. True, that is a very small
downside. But the REAL downside to entertaining bullshit like this is
much MUCH higher, other costs include:

1) Listening to the story takes time. Wasting time has opportunity-cost.

2) There's a high probability that the person at your door is either
pulling your leg, or genuinely crazy.

3) There's a probability that the scheme is part of some criminal
activity (for example rigging of the lottery) that could land you in
jail or have you killed.

4) To even get to -hear- the story you need to have a habit of listening
to random people showing up at your door. Doing so generally will with
certanity waste a lot of time, an opportunity-cost.

5) Being generally willing to part with small amounts of money and
larger amounts of time whenever some random person requests either will
over time cause you to lose significant amounts of both. It also carries
high risk that you'll fall victim to a more expensive fraud.


Eivind Kjorstad

mcv skreiv:

> If the chance is not less than 1/65 million, the lottery is losing money.
> Not a very smart way to run a lottery.

A -jackpot- in a lottery is often a pool of money that could have been
but was not won earlier weeks. It happens regularily that lotteries gain
jackpots that are high enough that your odds are over unity, if you
where the only player.

Offcourse what -tends- to happen is that (for example) The jackpot is
$10million and the odds of winning it is 1:3million, but then due to the
large jackpot a LOT more people play than usual, so the jackpot ends up
being won by 10 people for a payout of $1million each.

Paying $1 for a 1:3mill chance of winning $1mill is not a good deal.

Also, the sky-high jackpots and stories of people winning tens of
millions serve as advertising for the lottery.

> How do *you* estimate the chance that some completely bizarre story
> that completely conflicts with your worldview is actually true?

Low enough to be ignorable as long as no evidence is presented, if
evidence is presented, it depends on the strength of the evidence.

> I'm always open to the possibility that my worldview is completely wrong,
> and if someone cares enough to come and tell me that story in person,
> I'm certainly willing to grant him a chance of one in a million that
> he's right.

I'm not. Not unless he has -some- evidence. Failing that, ATLEAST a
halfway plausible story and explanation. (which this scenario
empathically was NOT) There are -millions- or -billions- of people in
the world who will tell you that your worldview is completely wrong. So
if you assign 1:1million chance that any -one- of them is right, you
logically must think there's a large number of religions in the world
right now that are correct.

>> rigged the lottery but are too close to the process to try to collect it
>> themselves and need a patsy. Maybe you'll find yourself blackmailed and
>> threatened for the rest of your life. Maybe you'll be murdered and
>> someone else will assume your identity. Maybe countless other nasty,
>> unpleasant things that you can't guess off the top of your head. You
>> don't know how likely these are, but surely they're more likely than him
>> really being a time traveller.
>
> Seems rather farfetched for such a mundane scheme. If they have the power
> to rig a reputable lottery, I don't see what they'd need a patsy for.

Rigging a lottery and killing the winner for the prize is "far-fetched"
but gobbelydok about parallell universes and seemingly normal people
going to EXTREME lengths in order to earn a -single- dollar is not ? How
about he just wants to entice you to head to the kiosk and bring your
wallet so that he can mug you on the way, or he wants you out of the
house so he can steal your plasma-tv ? There are literally zillions of
scenarios like these that are hugely more likely than the parallell
universe nonsense.

> Considering my lack of criminal/blackmailable history, I'd
> find it less likely that an organised crime ring chose me as a patsy
> they can control than that some bum on my doorstep is actually from
> the future.

That is a truly bizarre evaluation when you consider that we KNOW that
"bums on doorsteps" have tried to take advantage of average normal
people millions of times, but we have -zero- indication that anyone has
ever traveled in time.

> But you're only looking at it from my point of view, and not from the
> criminals' point of view. Why the hell would they even need a patsy,
> and why would they choose me for it? It's their motives that don't
> make sense, and that has nothing to do with the physical possibility.

The motives of the parallell universe guys also completely fails to make
sense. So does their methods. So this is not much of an argument.

There is any number of criminal or fraudolous activities that benefit
from you doing, essentially, what you are told to do. Ranging from
someone will hold a camera to your face and expose you as a gullible
idiot to you will end up dead, most possibilities are in between.

Eivind Kjorstad

Remus Shepherd <remus@panix.com> wrote:
> Let's look at it this way: If you were sent back to ancient Rome with
> an inexact grasp of the language and nothing else, how would you acquire
> one unit of...whatever the currency they used back then? And you have to do
> it in a way that carries no risk that you'll be apprehended or delayed in
> getting back to your retrieval spot.

Impossible. Simply speaking poor Latin and being unreasonably tall will be
enough to make the probability of being apprehended non-trivial.

The best way to handle it, I think, would be to bring an appropriate
quantity of gold, preferably in the form of jewelry. The same should work
today.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Erik Max Francis <max@alcyone.com> wrote:
> Occam's razor applies here: What is more likely, that time travel is
> real and somehow a time traveller from the future wants you to become
> rich, or someone found a way to rig the lottery and is involving you for
> some reason?

There's a third alternative: he just got "lucky". Scare quotes because he
didn't actually benefit from it himself.

People do win the lottery. Just because your inspiration for the numbers
came from a crazy man at the door doesn't mean there's *anything* strange
going on. Occam's Razor would tend to indicate that you won a normal
lottery through luck unless other evidence is brought forth.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

mcv <mcvmcv@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Michael Ash <mike@mikeash.com> wrote:
>> Just out of curiosity, how did you decide on that probability? You think
>> that there's a one-in-a-million chance that he's actually from the future.
>> There are probably a million people on the planet who think they're from
>> the future. Do you really think it's likely that one of them is *right*
>> about it?
>
> Not in the least, but that's not how probabilities work, although it's
> impossible to get the probabilities of complex situations like this
> correct intuitively.
> The basic probability that we're talking about here is the chance that
> time travel is even possible. According to my current world view, there's
> no chance in hell, but my current world view could easily be wrong. I
> estimate that chance well over 0.01. The chance that time travel is
> possible? No idea, but if someone like Stephen Hawking has seriously
> considered the possibility, who am I to say that chance is smaller
> than 0.001?
>
> Now, given the chance that time travel is possible, what's the chance
> that mankind will seriously **** up and nearly wipe themselves out?
> Pretty big IMO. We've seen several serious scenarios for doing that
> in the past decades, so I'm certainly willing to grant this a 0.1
> chance. Considering this scenario, what's the chance that someone
> will travel back in time and try to prevent it? Given that time
> travel is possible? Well, they need to discover it first, ofcourse,
> but if it's possible, chances are it will be discovered sooner or
> later.
>
> So, given all of that, what's the chance that they'll pick *me* for
> their bizarre mission to save the world? Tiny ofcourse, but better
> than average, I suspect. I'm smart, educated, open to questioning what
> I believe in, willing to spend money on good causes rather than indulge
> in hedonism, and I live in a part of the world with better than average
> access to whatever resources might be necessary for such a mission.
>
> The end result is bound to be a ridiculously small chance, but given
> that someone is at my door telling me this increases the chance. Not
> to any actually likely odds, but to, I don't know, wild guess:
> 0.000001? The man at my door is much easier explained by the theory
> that he's delusional, but this unlikely scenario also suits these
> events remarkably well. It'd be stupid to deny that, even if there's
> still 99.9999% chance it's nonsense.

Putting together the numbers, you think the chances are 1 in 100 that they
will pick you for their mission. That's either a huge ego or a poor grasp
of the math.

If you meant that you think there's a one in a million chance that they
would pick you, then you need to multiply that by the other chances (that
time travel is possible, and that a catastrophe will occur) to get the
final probability, resulting in a probability of one in ten billion, not
one in a million. Still on the high side IMO, but now getting to the point
where this person can be ignored.

>> One in a million seems inconceivably generous to me. Despite hanging out
>> in this group, I'm not particularly SF-credulous in real life (and why
>> should I be? These sorts of things just don't happen) and I would put the
>> chances that he's telling the truth at something more like one in one
>> quintillion, or lower yet.
>
> I'm not particularly SF-credulous in real life either, and I agree
> that these things just don't happen, but it'd be unbelievably arrogant
> to insist that there's no chance that my view of the world is the only
> possibility, and that there's not even 0.1% chance that I'm wrong.

That's an interesting way of evaluating things. By this logic you ought to
be buying lottery tickets *all the time*. I mean, your view of the world
probably tells you that your chances of winning are too remote for it to
pay off, but you have a 0.1% chance of being wrong about that. Crunching
the numbers, it becomes well worthwhile to play constantly. Do you?

(This sort of thinking would actually explain pretty well why so many
people play. Maybe some of them know that they have little chance of
winning but are banking on being wrong about it.)

> I'm estimating the chances that I'm wrong in some of the things I
> believe in much higher than that. Well over 50%, actually (I just
> don't know *which* things I'd be wrong at). I estimate the chances
> of time travelling being possible much smaller ofcourse, but mainly
> because if time travel was possible, we (and history) should be
> flooded with time travellers. Mankind wiping itself out shortly
> after the discovery of time travel would explain the lack of time
> travellers quite well, however, making it possibly one of the more
> realistic (though still very unlikely) time travel scenarios.

Actually I believe the story was that disaster occurred, mankind was
*almost* wiped out, recovered, has a reasonably warm and fuzzy life, then
started to time travel to see if the disaster could be stopped.

There's another wrench to throw into the probabilities: after all the
wrangling over whether it's possible and whether they would pick you, you
have the question of whether this project would happen. This is so far
into the future that the disaster is a distant memory. They know that the
end result was happy (they're still around, right?) and could have easily
gone bad (a thousand individuals could easily become zero) so why mess
with success? Imagine if time travel were invented today. I could easily
see things like people going back to mess with the Holocaust (despite the
risk of inadvertently creating a world where everyone is white, blue eyed,
blond haired, and speaking German) but how about going back to an ice age
and trying to prevent a population bottleneck then?

> I'm sticking with my original assessment of the situation: this
> story is well worth my $1.

That could be, but there are other ways for that to be true than that his
story is true.

By the way, can I have a dollar? :)

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

On 12 Feb 2008 10:02:55 GMT, mcv <mcvmcv@xs4all.nl> wrote:

:George W Harris <gharrus@mundsprung.com> wrote:
:> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:42:41 -0600, Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
:> :On 11 Feb 2008 16:18:40 GMT, mcv <mcvmcv@xs4all.nl> wrote:
:> :>Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
:> :>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:57:41 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
:> :>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
:> :>>
:> :>>>On Feb 9, 10:41 pm, Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
:> :>>>
:> :>>>> What, if anything, could he say to convince you to spend a dollar to
:> :>>>> play 'his' numbers for a $65,000,000 lottery?
:> :>>>
:> :>>>He wouldn't have to say much to convince me to do _that_, but if he
:> :>>>wanted something more serious, *then* he would have a big problem.
:> :>>>After all, the very slim possibility he is telling the truth is enough
:> :>>>to improve the odds of winning the $65 million significantly.
:> :>>
:> :>> Added to the fact that madmen are sometimes very lucky?
:> :>
:> :>Since when is that a fact?
:> :
:> :It's implied by so many of them surviving disasters that would kill a
:> :normal person. :)
:>
:> There's a selection bias there.
:
:Two options immediately spring to mind: surviving a disaster can traumatise
:to the point of insanity, and madmen may be more likely to imagine a
:disaster and end up believing it.

Madmen are more likely to be involved in
disasters through actions of their own.
:
:
:mcv.
--
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV!

George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'

"Tim Little" <tim@soprano.little-possums.net> wrote in message
news:slrnfr29qk.a0b.tim@soprano.little-possums.net...
> On 2008-02-12, John Schilling <schillin@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>> And I'm leery of any claim to being 99.9999999+% accurate in
>> divining the motives of complete strangers on the basis of a brief
>> conversation.
>
> One doesn't have to be 99.9999999+% accurate in divining their
> motives. It's not a bet of $1 vs unknown probability of increasing
> your odds. It's a bet of $1 + unknown probability of ending up in
> jail, dead, swindled, or something else bad vs unknown probability of
> increasing your odds.
>
> In fact even if his story is *true* (with a priori ridiculously low
> probability), there's an unknown probability of ending up dead, in
> jail, etc. And without even saving the world.
>
>
> - Tim

With 65 million bucks, I could make myself pretty damn hard to find, which
would be the plan, anyway. Not build the lit up masion that can be see from
30 miles in any direction, or tool around in the 30 foot stretch humvee
limo, which is how you spot the local woman who hit a 100 million plus
lottery here.

George W Harris opined

>On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 08:38:48 GMT, "Joetheone"
><joetheone@dontchabespamminme.com> wrote:

>:
>:Then there was that X Files psychic that was consistently one number off
>:across the board
>:
> Clyde Bruckman, played by Peter Boyle, in the
>best X-Files episode evar.

> His only power was knowing how and when people
>would die.

Was it a sure thing, or could the victim(?) use the information to extend his
life?

-ash
Cthulhu in 2008!
Vote the greater evil.

Michael Ash wrote:

> (This sort of thinking would actually explain pretty well why so many
> people play. Maybe some of them know that they have little chance of
> winning but are banking on being wrong about it.)

I seriously doubt it's quite that clever. It's more like the kind of
reasoning you see all the time, including in rec.arts.sf.science from
time to time: arguments like, "Well, someone's got to win," or "If you
play regularly you'll win eventually."

> There's another wrench to throw into the probabilities: after all the
> wrangling over whether it's possible and whether they would pick you, you
> have the question of whether this project would happen. This is so far
> into the future that the disaster is a distant memory. They know that the
> end result was happy (they're still around, right?) and could have easily
> gone bad (a thousand individuals could easily become zero) so why mess
> with success? Imagine if time travel were invented today. I could easily
> see things like people going back to mess with the Holocaust (despite the
> risk of inadvertently creating a world where everyone is white, blue eyed,
> blond haired, and speaking German) but how about going back to an ice age
> and trying to prevent a population bottleneck then?

Actually I was working my way up to mentioning this in my next reply.
If you assume that this is an American lottery, the chances of you being
selected are one in a few hundred million. That's _less_ than the
official chances of you winning the lottery right there! And that's
_combined_ with the probabilities that you think he's actually a time
traveller.

--
Erik Max Francis && max@alcyone.co