I guess part of what you are asking about is the difference between using a quantum random number source, and using a deterministic pseudorandom number source (which happens to be inside your brain). Stuart Armstrong wrote Quantum versus Logical Bombs about one difference, suggesting that maybe risk-averse actors should prefer the quantum version (because then even if you make a bad decision, at least there will exist some multiple worlds in which you didn't...).
One obvious difference (which you may or may not have intended) is that on Tuesday, all your decisions need to be made consciously and with some explicit calculation. This makes the decision-making process more cumbersome, and also means you engage different bits of mental machinery from Monday, which will lead to decisions that differ in various ways.
I gravely doubt whether the Tuesday scenario is actually anything remotely like possible, but that may not matter.
All the above would be just the same if you were just rolling dice. Is the real point of the question something to do with the quantumness of the random number generator? If so, I think you need to be more explicit about what sort of difference you think there might be (or think that others think there might be).
Hardware random number generators often use quantum effects for randomness. Though I agree that specifying quantum is pointless.
Yeah, that's not what I was getting at.
Not for every single decision, but let's say for 10 / day.
Yes, the quantumness is the point. Let's say I'm shooting photons through a half-silvered mirror or something like that.
By the way, "there is no difference" is a perfectly acceptable answer, if it's true.
I would be astonished if it made any difference. Not least because I bet your decisions already are well enough quantum-randomized: the universe is a quantum system, after all, and while maybe most everyday things can be adequately described as plus small errors, those small errors often grow exponentially over time.
Ah, so you are taking the MWI ontology as if it were something testable. Gotcha. Let me just note that if your logic relies on untestables, it's not a good one. If the visible outcome changes when you replace "Everett branches" with "possible worlds", you are doing something wrong.
I'm wondering how it affects the "reality fluid", for example.
"Reality fluid" is EYspeak for "I have no clue", and he stated as much, though not in quite that way. It's not a good term, as it gives a false impression of explaining/modeling something. Don't use it.
By Wednesday you're convinced that infinitely recursive strategies may not be as awesome as they originally seemed.
Two questions:
What kind of decisions do you have in mind? Presumably I'm not rolling each time I take a step (or not) while walking down the street, right?
Is there any reason not to say 100% for all my decisions on Tuesday? (Assuming I don't happen to find myself in any adversarial interactions with Omega.)
CFAR sometimes plays a Monday / Tuesday game (invented by palladias). Copying from the URL:
So my question is (edited on 2014/05/13):
On Monday, I make my decisions by rolling a normal die. Example: should I eat vanilla or chocolate ice-cream? I then decide that if I roll 4 or higher on a 6-sided die, I'll pick vanilla. I roll the die, get a 3, and so proceed to eat chocolate ice-cream.
On Tuesday, I use the same procedure, but use a quantum random number generator instead. (For the purpose of this discussion, let's assume that I can actually find a true/reliable generator. May be I'm shooting a photon through a half-silvered mirror.)
What's the difference? (Relevant discussion pointed out Pfft.)