Archive | Uncategorized RSS feed for this section

People Over-Think Government

29 Jul

There are really only two types of government. There is central planning, which is logically equivalent to, if not synonymous with, dictatorship; and there is freedom, which is logically equivalent to, if not synonymous with, capitalism.

All central planning requires a person, or group of people, sometimes called “the party” that does the planning. Inevitably, such people shore up their control until it is impossible for anyone else to interfere. This leads to dictatorship, which, historically, has been the most common form of government. Dictators come in the form of Kings, Emperors, Absolute Monarchs, Presidents for life, “Dear Leaders”, etc.

Dictatorships are not always disasters. In France, citizens were very impressed, if not happy with, their Absolute Monarch Louis XIV.


However, as Wikipedia explains, “Warfare defined the foreign policy of Louis XIV, and his personality shaped his approach. Impelled ‘by a mix of commerce, revenge, and pique’, Louis sensed that warfare was the ideal way to enhance his glory. In peacetime he concentrated on preparing for the next war. He taught his diplomats that their job was to create tactical and strategic advantages for the French military.” I would not have wanted to live in a country like that.

Freedom is logically equivalent to capitalism because capitalism is the only form of commerce that can take place in a free society. If people are “free”, they own their own stuff. If they own their own stuff, they trade their own stuff. This is called capitalism.

Free people would be vulnerable if they did not have a “representative” government to enforce honest interactions and guard their borders.


The only way anyone has ever discovered for free people to have a representative government is for them to vote. When people vote for those who represent them in such affairs, this is called Democracy.

Unfortunately, Democracy has a weakness. If a country is prosperous and maintains peace for a substantial amount of time, the populace inevitably becomes soft and loses perspective. As the maxim incorrectly attributed to Alexander Tytler explains, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”

So, perhaps there is actually only one form of government: dictatorship.

Still, freedom is nice, and the United States has a good measure of it at present. We should guard that freedom for as long as is humanly possible. For that reason, we should fear politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who want to hurry us into central planning. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her ilk are the enemies of freedom.


The Hollowood

7 Nov

Beyond the mount of nameless pride,
Aloof to lands they stand astride,
And blind to prayers that they deride,
The Hollowood in strength reside,

The Hollowood embrace the shore
With rainbow fruit devoid of core;
With cotton lies and Weinstein lore;
And snowflake spawn of countless score.

The Hollowood observe the sea.
They mock the heart while taking knee.
They honor root, but not the tree,
They share the door, but not the key.

The Hollowood surround the bay
They scorn the poor and house the stray.
They call the child from far away,
Inviting him to dread-filled play.

The Hollowood remake the rules
Without the aid of common tools
Their craft is what they make for fools;
Bereft of life, but filled with ghouls.

The Hollowood are hard to find.
They hide in front, and speak behind.
They shine the light upon the blind,
And take the light from those they bind.

The Hollowood embrace the See,
But less with love than entropy;
And scorn the best, as they decree
The fruit upon their evil tree.

The Hollowood will pass away,
And where the palm of death did sway,
No scratch, no mark, no glint will stay
No remnant of their stolen day.

The Real Technological Singularity

29 Sep

It has occurred to me of late that readers misunderstand something fundamental about my descriptions of the future.  These descriptions are all based on easy extrapolations of present technology and scientific understanding.

For example, I assume that machines can be built to perform any menial activity the human brain can perform. After all, humans can do it. It appears that any activity humans can do, a machine can do at least as well. We have substantial evidence of this in machines that beat humans at games like chess and Go. There seems to be some question as to whether machines can be built that are self-motivated and can generalize so that they are able to do things like design and build a spaceship. However, it appears that doing so is merely an extrapolation of many activities machines already perform.

If computers can reason, it seems likely that they can use their reasoning to control robots. Moreover, it seems likely that these computer controlled robots will be able to accomplish the feats of construction that I typically describe. We are already making progress on such robots, and there is every indication that this progress will continue.

It seems likely that computer controlled robots could be tooled to move through space and mine asteroids. Finally, they should be able to use materials from those asteroids to build elaborate space habitats and space transports that will land on earth and take humans to those habitats.

Working Robots

So the question may naturally arise: is this what I actually expect the future to be like?

The answer is an emphatic no. The problem is that machines that can do everything a human can do are likely to improve upon their own programming in ways that ultimately make them capable of tasks that surpass what is possible by humans. This is the process that is expected to initiate what has been called the Technological Singularity.

These machines may not facilitate the colonization of space. They may do things that, as far as humans are able to comprehend, are essentially magic. They may show us another dimension where everything we think we want is already available in abundance. They may reconfigure the universe at its most fundamental level and turn it all into one giant habitat. They may show us how to be free of our bodies so that we can roam among the stars as spirits that never want for or need anything. Maybe, these machines will march us straight up to God and introduce us face to face so that we stop wasting our time with pedestrian pursuits and begin to develop our spirits. They may lead us to something we have, as yet, never imagined. They may make everything we have ever imagined obsolete.

Beyond Comprehension

Of course, there are the dark possibilities. They may eat us as snacks or discard us as relics. They may realize that human consciousness is best used as a kind of fuel for some unimaginable transport or glue for some unimaginable construction. Instead of introducing us to God, they may introduce us to the devil and say, “See, I told you they were loathsome. Do with them as you please.”

I actually cannot say which of these possibilities is most likely. I like to believe that humans are here for a reason and that it is a reason they would naturally find appealing. After all, what sense would it make to “create” something (Here, I use the word create somewhat loosely.) that hates the purpose it was created for?

The problem with such ideas is that there is no place to go with them. If we assume that the technological singularity inevitably leads to things we cannot possibly comprehend, we have reached the end of the discussion and we are all left wringing our hands.

However, does this diminish my ideas? It would, if my ideas were predictions of the precise nature of the future I expect; but that is not their purpose. They are not intended as actual descriptions, but as a sort of lower bound. When I describe the colonization of space, I am not saying, “This is exactly what I expect to happen.” I am saying, “This is the minimum I expect to happen. This is the lower end of what we should be able to achieve by such and such time.” Perhaps, I should say this at the beginning of every applicable topic I discuss, but that sort of disclaimer would get tiresome. Maybe I will occasionally allude to the present essay at the beginning of applicable topics or once in a while during discussions.

I believe that it will be possible for people to colonize the solar system using self-replicating robotic systems and the stations and transports they build. However this does not preclude the possibility that we will do it sooner, faster, better, or in a vastly different way. The first thing we build in space may not be a wheel station, but a giant gravity plate that accommodates billions of inhabitants. We may not build it in our solar system, but across several solar systems. Maybe we will build it somewhere in some other dimension that we cannot presently contemplate. Maybe we will somehow copy the earth a dozen times in all its detail and set up solar systems identical to our own at a dozen different locations. These are all possibilities that depend on science and inventions that may or may not be possible. We do not know, so there is no point in discussing them.

Greed in Space

16 Sep

Lately, I have been thinking a lot about what will actually happen as computers and robots begin to have the ability to do every job that humans can do. Those who are familiar with my writings know that I am enthusiastic about using self-replicating robotic systems to build an infrastructure that makes it possible for humans to colonize the solar system. Due to the large volume of quality resources in space and the potential for almost unlimited expansion into space, I expect space industry and colonization to dominate the 21st century. It will become clear, as I progress with this discussion, why I feel justified in making this assumption.

The plan for colonization of space goes something like this. A self-replicating robotic system will be sent to an asteroid to begin mining and manufacturing other self-replicting robotic systems. Once a sufficient army of robots is built up, those robots will begin to manufacture space transports and space stations suitable for human habitation. Very soon, the transports will begin to land on earth and take people to space. I have worked out the math for this process and determined that after a self-replicating robotic system is sent up, it would be 15 years until every single living soul on earth could be living comfortably in space. In other words, if the robotic system is sent up in 2025, by 2040, everyone could have a comfortable, spacious, space-born estate.

That is the mechanics of the plan; what about the economics? I have been tracking the progress of space mining and it is evident that the first space mines will be privately funded. The Federal Aviation Administration has given Moon Express permission to land a craft on the moon. Deep Space Industries is building autonomous spacecraft that can mine asteroids. Planetary Resources is also developing technology that will allow it to begin exploring asteroids. So far, no government has shown direct interest in space mining, although Planetary Resources is backed in part by Luxembourg. When the first self-replicating robotic system is sent up, it is likely to be funded by a private corporation. So, how will this corporation pursue this? They will certainly want to make some profit, but will they become so greedy that they effectively shut everyone else out? Maybe they will build the huge space habitats that I envision but charge people astronomical amounts to move there. Instead of everyone having a comfortable space habitat, a handful of people will have entire giant space stations all to themselves.

But does that matter? What happens next? Will we end up with a system like in the film Elysium, where a handful of people live in opulence and everyone else lives in drudgery, or will something else happen? What will the fabulously wealthy people who inhabit space do next?

Anyone who has seen the film Elysium, and really thought about it, has made the same observation. If the society depicted has all those robots that can do all the work, why, instead of using them to suppress the proletariat, do they not use them to greatly expand their manufacturing base? Why do they not use that expanded manufacturing base to build more robots? Why do the not use their greatly expanded manufacturing base and robotic army to build another Elysium?

Suppose a corporation builds the first space habitats, and sells or rents them at exorbitant prices that only the very wealthy can afford. What will happen next? Once all the very rich are living in space and have all the opulence anyone could possibly pine for, will they just sit there and be rich for the rest of eternity?

My guess is that they will want to get in on the action. They will invest in robots that do more mining and building. In fact, it will be difficult to keep them from doing this. If anyone owns even one self-replicating robotic system, they will be able to set up an enterprise of their own.

Open Star Cluster in the Constellation Swan

It is possible that the first people to set up mining in space will try to cut them out by staking claims to nearly everything up there, but I strongly suspect that governments will act to prevent this. Governments are bound to notice that a handful of parties are hording all the resources, and they are going to set up some kind of taxation and regulation system to keep it in check. Since an extraterrestrial corporation that owns all of space would be an extraordinary security threat, they are likely to do this sooner rather than later.

I have given some thought to the kind of taxation and regulation that will be needed. Since there are no natural or easily defined boundaries in space, it seems fairly evident that we will need to tax people by the mass and makeup of material they lay claim to. If someone lays claim to a cubic kilometer of material, an assessment will be made as to the mass and makeup of that volume of material. If it is mostly lighter elements, the party claiming it will be taxed less than they would if it was composed largely of metals and elements that can be used as nuclear fuel. The tax will be progressive, so that two cubic kilometers will be taxed at a higher rate per kg than one cubic kilometer. In this way, it will be beneficial for any enterprise to involve as many investors as possible. This will speed up the democratization of space.

Sunlight will probably be the most popular power source in space. I have worked out a sensible way to tax people for the use of sunlight. When a person sets up a solar panel, they are effectively laying claim to the portion of the sun that generates the energy that illuminates their panel. By drawing lines from the perimeter of a solar panel to the center of the sun, a pyramidal slice of the sun is defined. The size of the slice defined is determined by the surface area of the solar panel and its distance from the sun. The percentage of the sun a party claims by setting up a solar panel will be determined by the volume of this slice. The amount they are taxed will be set accordingly. Very large solar panels that are close to the sun will represent large solar claims and will be taxed more. Very small panels that are far from the sun will represent nearly negligible claims and will be taxed less. Since objects that do not collect solar energy still block sunlight, they may be charged in the same manner as solar panels for the slice of sun they block.


A strategy similar to taxation for the use of sunlight may be worked out for charging people to park facilities of various sizes in orbit around the sun, as well as the planets and their moons. Perhaps, they can be charged on the basis of how close they park and how massive their facilities are. Since there will be an advantage to parking close to the sun or close to large planets, the calculation may be as simple as determining the mutual gravitation of any facility and any object it is close to.

Putting all of this together, the taxation of any project in space can be determined by a combination of how massive it is, what materials it is composed of, how far it is from the sun, how much surface area faces the sun, and the mutual gravitation of the project to any other massive object. Some additional taxes may be assessed for high risk projects that are likely to stir up a lot of loose regolith or generate stray projectiles that increase the risk to other space-born facilities. Note that objects that are far from the sun (perhaps in the Kuiper belt) and not close to any planets will be taxed at a much lower rate than objects that are close to the sun. Since AI will be in charge of all the taxation, it will be possible for taxes to be adjusted on a moment by moment basis.

The taxes that are assessed can be used to fund the AI that regulates space colonization and to further democratize space by setting up basic (not very basic) habitats for people who want to get started in space and have little or no money. Ideally, these habitats will be funded as loans to the recipients, since giveaways are always bad economic policy.

When we consider the ease with which new parties will be able to insert themselves into the space mining and manufacturing process and the regulations that are likely to be in place, it becomes clear that a lot more people than the original prospectors are going to get in on the action. Assuming that the very first people to set up manufacturing in space are not somewhat altruistic, someone is going to come along that is. They will say, “Hey, wait a minute, there are plenty of resources up here for everyone. Why not make it possible for everyone to move to space if they want to? Why not make it possible for anyone and everyone to live in opulence?”

However, suppose that absolutely no one who sets up manufacturing in space has even one altruistic bone in their body. As more and more people get in on the self-replicating robotic manufacturing gig, there are going to be fewer and fewer people for them to sell their wares to. Eventually, they will be selling large facilities to people who have almost no capital for whatever they are willing to pay. Sooner or later, someone will be heard to say, “Hey, I have a dozen space stations, and I only want to pay taxes on seven. Why don’t you take the other five?”

So, the problem really does not come down to how greedy people are. Human greed may make a bit of difference in the beginning, but sooner or later the resources of space will be somewhat democratized. It is certainly true that a handful of people will live in more opulence than others. However, the least opulent estate will still dwarf anything we are accustomed to on earth.

Someone may object, saying, “But wait a minute, even in space, resources are limited!”

That is true, but there are a lot of resources in space. The asteroid Ceres has a volume of 421 million cubic kilometers and a mass of 9.39×10^20 kg. Probably, nearly all of it is usable. Keep in mind that we are learning how to build superior materials out of elements as basic as carbon. 9.39×10^20 kg is enough mass to build 1.32×10^13 aircraft carriers. That is nearly 2000 aircraft carriers for every person on earth. It should be enough. That is just Ceres. If it does not have enough resources, there are other asteroids, and we can always start mining some of the smaller moons. Also, it seems unlikely that anyone will build really large facilities just for themselves. At some point, they are likely to concentrate their wealth toward improving the quality of their facilities. While these higher quality projects may require greater craftsmanship, they will seldom require more materials.

All in all, a sensible way of governing and regulating space can be worked out so that everyone gets a reasonable share and everything functions smoothly.

The title of this article was “Greed in Space” because it seemed like it would be a discussion of how human nature would determine the future of colonization of the solar system. However, as always, when economics is taken into account, it turns out that human nature is and always will be subsidiary. People are, after all, economic animals, and economics dictates their ultimate behavior.

Ugly Watches

12 Sep

About one month ago, I first became aware of a watch for sale on Watch U Want. It is a watch created by the watchmaker Christophe Claret for the Guy Ellia watch company. I am always looking at listings for complex watches, and that probably has something to do with why an ad for this watch appeared on my browser. The watch originally retailed for nearly a million dollars, but it has been marked down to $250,000. For some reason, the internet robots that place these ads on my web pages aren’t able to ascertain that I am incapable of buying a million dollar watch.

This watch is as ugly as it is useless. It is too large to wear comfortably in almost any occupation. It has to be hand wound, so it would be a constant burden, and even an extremely wealthy person would feel uncomfortable wearing it almost anywhere for fear that it might get damaged:


Yet, I absolutely love this watch. If I had a net worth of not less than $250 million I might even consider buying it. For a detailed explanation of what this watch is and what it can do, I recommend viewing this video posted by Watch U Want:

Like many pragmatic people, I am tempted to ridicule this watch. It is far less useful than the Samsung Gear watch I wear all the time. My Samsung watch is also my telephone. However, it can be used as an alarm, navigation, texting, a timer, and several other functions…most of which hold no interest for me. I am reminded of how I used to look for watches with lots of functions. For a while I wore a Casio Databank that was designed to be used as a calculator, but that I mostly used just for its alarm functions. I still use that watch as my main alarm clock, but I never wear it.

Half a century ago, before watches became electronic and digital, watches that had lots of “complications” were mechanical marvels. The pinnacle of these watches were the so-called automatic watches that were supposedly self-winding, although they were (and are) so inefficient that their users had to buy expensive winding stations and/or spend a substantial amount of time pumping their arms to keep their watches wound.

Like I said, I am tempted to ridicule this watch, but that is the wrong way to look at it. If you go to YouTube and look at some videos of watch making and watchmakers, you will quickly realize that the making of these watches is not just a monetary enterprise. The people who make these watches are extremely proud of their work and view themselves more as artists than as merchants. The correct way to view a watch like this is as a work of art.

I cannot afford this watch. Yet, I still get enjoyment from it. It pleases me to know that a watch like this exists. It pleases me to look at the video posted by Watch U Want and marvel at its mechanical monstrosity. Like I said, it is not an attractive watch. Yet I love it. The person who made this watch was obviously in love with machinery. He had the same mentality as people who see a race car and want the hood opened to inspect the engine. To most people, engines are ugly, but to someone who loves machinery, they are beautiful.

This watch is expensive because of the craftsmanship, knowledge, and effort that went into making it. However, it would never have been made if there were no people rich enough to buy it. Watchmakers could not afford to make watches like this if there were no people who could both afford to buy them and were willing to shell out the money.

For that reason, I must also love the people who have that much money and are willing to spend it on this kind of watch. I may feel, in passing, that their money would be better spent on more charitable pursuits, but what if it was? Then this watch would never have been made and I would never have been able to look at the pictures of it, watch the video about it, and marvel at its aforementioned mechanical monstrosity.

The same is true of most of the famous paintings that are now displayed in museums. They would never have been painted if not for the rich merchants that commissioned them. The artists who painted them could not have afforded to spend the time if no one was willing to pay for the painting. I suspect that watches like this will eventually find their way into museums, where they will be admired and appreciated by generations to come.

So, let us all appreciate the extravagant watchmakers of the world and the extravagant watch buyers of the world. If not for all of them, there would be no ugly-beautiful watches like this one, and there would be no ugly-beauty in the world to appreciate…if only on museum walls and in YouTube videos.

My Own Bild Lilli Doll

1 Sep

I collect interesting and unusual toys. For example, I have all of the Micro Machines Star Trek ships, and I have 1:64 scale die cast replicas of all the most famous automobiles. Recently, I added a toy to my collection that I am extremely proud of. It is an original Lilli doll:


I put her in this cheap dollar store dress while I am waiting for a nicer dress to arrive in the mail. I have wanted a Lilli doll for years, ever since I learned about her remarkable history. I acquired one just recently from a seller on eBay. It was embarrassingly expensive.

For those of you who do not know, Lilli was the precursor to Barbie. She began with a cartoon that appeared in the Bild German newspaper in 1952. A cartoonist, Reinhard Beuthien, was asked to draw a picture to fill a space in the paper. He originally drew a picture of a baby with a large forehead and big eyes, but the editor did not like it, so he ordered Reinhard to come up with something else. Reinhard used the same drawing, but transformed it into a beautiful woman named Lilli. The whole history of Lilli can be read in the Wikipedia entry for the Bild Lilli doll.

So, Barbie began with a drawing of a baby that was transformed into a woman with infantile features. The cartoon was a hit. Eventually, the newspaper contracted for a doll based on the cartoon that was intended as a kind of pornographic gag gift for men. However, she became popular with young girls who liked to dress her and play house with her.

During a trip to Europe, Ruth Handler acquired three of these Lilli dolls and copied them to create Mattel’s now famous Barbie. If you ever wondered why Barbie looks the way she does, keep in mind that she originated with a pornographic cartoon about a baby-faced gold digger from Post-war Germany.

Never before in history had it been seriously considered that young girls would want to play with an adult-aged 11½ inch doll. It was only through the curious historical accident of a baby being transformed into a cartoon and this cartoon being transformed into a gag gift for men that the discovery was made. But there she was, Barbie, the apple in the eye of nine year old girls around the world.

I should know. My own sister, nine years older than me to the day, had to have one. As my mother tells it, my sister saw Barbie in a department store window and cried until my father, who didn’t have much money at the time, drove several miles back to the store and bought one for her. My sister acquired her first Barbie doll in 1959, the year I was born.

Barbie’s face has changed quite a bit over the years, but her body has remained mostly the same. She has always had those same large breasts and that same pinched waist. From her inception, there have been complaints about her unrealistic figure. Just recently, A Daily Mail article declared that “If Barbie was a real woman she’d be forced to walk on all fours and would be physically incapable of lifting her over-sized head.” Most complaints have centered on her large breasts and tiny waist. The claim is repeatedly made that if she were a real woman, she would have too little body fat to be able to menstruate.

I have always found these complaints to be frustrating and misleading. People who criticize Barbie’s figure notice only the characteristics they wish to criticize and never notice that everything about her is unrealistic and ridiculous. What about the fact that she is made of plastic and is frozen in time like someone who has used far too much Botox? They say that if a woman actually looked like Barbie she would be unhealthy. However, the evidence from women who have attempted to look like Barbie suggests that she would also be freakishly unappealing:


That is not even the most significant misunderstanding. Since dolls are small, they must have exaggerated features so that their features stand out. If Barbie had a realistic face and figure, she would not look like a miniature person. She would look utterly featureless. She would look like a bar of soap.

Recently, sales in Mattel’s Barbie have been tanking. Personally, I think it is just because Mattel has saturated the market with so many holiday Barbies and specialty Barbies that their clientele cannot absorb the inventory. My brother used to buy every Holiday Barbie for his daughter. They are sitting in storage now, never removed from their original boxes, and no one knows what to do with them. I own a Star Trek Barbie. I gave an X-files Barbie to a friend who was an X-files fan and swore he would never own a Barbie. Recently, I bought a Barbie that is a copy of a vintage Barbie portraying a student teacher. I am a math teacher and found this edition to be particularly amusing:


I have considered buying one of these for my female team-teaching partner, but I am not sure she would appreciate the joke.

To increase sales, Mattel is releasing a new line of Barbies with more realistic and diverse figures. These include short Barbies, tall Barbies and fat Barbies:


However, I think they are missing the point. Young girls, influenced by fantasy films like Twilight, have become interested in dolls like this one that has green skin, giant eyes, and legs so long and skinny they are almost insectoid:


Talk about an unhealthy body image!

Hyper sensitive people give Mattel a hard time for making a doll with unrealistic features, but they completely ignore the true nature of children’s fantasies and fetishes. Barbie’s flaw has never been that she is too unrealistic. Her flaw has always been that she is too realistic. Consider these other dolls that have wings and can fly or have tails and swim like fish:


Children do not want reality. Reality is boring to children. Normal children who grow into normal adults are no more inclined to hold onto their hope of having a body like Barbie than they are to hold onto a desire to fly like a fairy or swim like a mermaid. Children’s stories and toys have always featured ridiculous things. For some reason that is a part of childhood. It must be a good idea or society would have given it up millennia ago. They would have given up Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, giants, witches, wizards, myriad talking animals and everything depicted by Dr. Seuss. Recall that Lilli was originally based on a baby-faced comic character that the toy makers apparently attempted to copy in all her unrealistic glory. She was the realization of a cartoon. Barbie is the reincarnation of a realized cartoon.

So what is the lesson in all of this? I will leave that to the reader. If I were here to teach a lesson, I would probably tell you to buy a fat doll or something like that.

But my Lilli doll is a thing of great beauty…and I will cherish her forever.

Gillitron the Idiot and the Three Gamesters of Triskelion

25 Jul

Long before anything came to be, the three Gamesters of Triskelion and their idiot brother Gillitron were sitting outside of existence. They were passing what passed for time in nonexistence by betting on what might happen next.

Gamester 1 said, “I wager that nothing will ever happen. Nothing will ever come into existence.”

Gamster 2 and 3 gave him 1 to 10^1,000,000,000,000 odds, since his prediction would almost certainly come true.

Gamester 2 said, “I wager that nothing will happen for a very long time, but after a period of time, less than infinity, a dimensionless point will come into existence.”

Gamester 1 and 3 gave him 10^1,000,000,000,000 to 1 odds, since it was so improbable.

Gamester 3 said, “I wager that, after an indefinite period of time, less than infinity, an empty space with N dimensions (greater than 0) will come into existence. It will have no properties and contain nothing.”

Gamester 1 and 2 gave him 10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^10)))))) to 1 odds since it was extremely improbable.

Then, their idiot brother Gillitron spoke up. Gillitron was never part of the usual betting process because he did not understand mathematics and always said things that were inconceivably stupid. Gillitron said, “Eventually, there will be a universe with N dimensions (greater than zero) that collapse and form properties that emulate a whole taxonomy of particles that will move and form together and eventually result in the appearance of solid planets supporting complex forms, of which some will have conscious experiences such as emotions, color, taste, etc.”

Gamester 1, 2 and 3 then contemplated all the myriad degenerate structures that could exist, such as particles that simply bounce off of each other and never take any form. Rather than giving odds, they merely laughed at their idiot brother Gillitron…as they had laughed at him an infinite number of times before.

After an indefinite period of time, Gillitron’s prediction came true.

Gamester 1, 2, and 3 concluded that the game was rigged and that there was some uber-gamester they were not aware of that stacked the deck.