text:
Talk:Ponzi scheme

not got caught
Is the anyone that has ever committed ponzi fraud without getting caught ? I do not think such is possible, yet people do them... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.161.130 (talk) 07:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If they had, how would we know? Actually, one reason confidence tricks in general are often successful is that people don't like to admit to being conned (sometimes even to themselves). AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Very true, we had this Egyptian mausoleum scheme in Finland that most victims didn't report to the police and have kept on participating in events organized by the conmen. In fact, the Finnish article on the case has been vandalized repeatedly by someone who feels that the main culprit is a persecuted genius or something. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes It is an everyday occurence. Most people call it the money market but if reading the description of a ponzi scheme closely you will see that it describes the money markets to a tee with the only exception that it is backed by the governments. When the government backed the investors legally they had no idea that they would have to bail out the investors and that is the only reason the US and other governments paid Billions to the investors owning the stopck markets. They can not loose. The small investor looses as the law only covers the market investors. Ponzi schemes make money with hot air which is what the money markets do. Thinking --The Sleeper Awakes (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Social Security?
I'm not sure that social security belongs here. We don't typically include all the things that some unspecified person compared to the topic of the article -- and I'm sure that if we were to do so, we could have a list a mile long. Including this particular comparison strikes me as promoting a point of view. So I'm going to edit that out, if it's alright -- but if anyone disagrees, please let me know and I'd be glad to discuss. Best, --TheOtherBob 21:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

 * It struck me as being off-topic, and arguably POV too. Wikipedia is an international project, and this was a purely US issue ('Social Security' means something entirely different in the UK for instance. If the matter should be discussed, this isn't the place to do it, but in an article on the US Social Security system. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm restoring it. You're right that we don't include all such comparisons.  One difference here is that criticizing Social Security as a Ponzi scheme is a very popular right-wing talking point.  If it isn't mentioned at all, there'll be a procession of ideologues editing the article to add Social Security as an example.

 * Even aside from that practical problem, I think that the analysis of the difference helps the reader gain further understanding of a Ponzi scheme.

 * As for AndyTheGrump's point, the discussion should be comprehensible to all because it's expressly referenced to "the Social Security program in the United States". Even UK readers can get an additional perspective on the concept of a Ponzi scheme by seeing how it compares to a program that has some similarities but also important differences. JamesMLane t c 22:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I think you're overstating the extent to which this is a mainstream or popular right-wing point -- it seems to be fringe even for them. But even if we are bombarded with right-wing POV-warriors...well, then we are -- I'd say that it's better to have the article be NPOV.  And I do think it's POV to include this -- it's like having an entry in the encyclopedia for "Idiot" and saying under it: "Some people believe that George Bush is an idiot, but he's not for x, y, and z reason."  Even including him there makes a statement -- even if we then try to explain why (in our opinion) he doesn't belong.

 * Moreover, we end up having to take a point of view on the topic if we want to have it be of any value -- we have to explain why Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. But Governor Rick Perry disagrees -- he has taken the view that it is.  Who's right?  Well, we are, frankly -- but we can't actually make that decision.  We have to present both sides, be neutral, and come to the conclusion that it's disputed.  Remarkably, if we don't remove this section, then we need to instead edit it so as to present the point of view of those who do think that it's a Ponzi scheme -- a view which is currently hinted at, but not properly represented.  And that certainly doesn't belong on this page.

 * As to the second point, I also don't agree -- I've read it a couple of times now, and don't have any greater understanding of Ponzi schemes. In fact, it merely confuses the issue by introducing something that some people say is like a Ponzi scheme, and that does share certain superficial characteristics, but that most people think isn't a Ponzi scheme for somewhat fundamental reasons of government and economics.  There's a colorable argument that the controversy (to the extent there is one) should be on the Social Security page -- it maybe helps explain what Social Security is and is not.  But it doesn't tell the reader anything about Ponzi schemes -- it just confuses them.  Given all of that, I can't think of any NPOV reason we'd want to have it here. --TheOtherBob 00:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I think TheOtherBob has made the point well enough. I'd just add that I'm sure UK and other non-US readers are quite capable of understanding the article without needing off-topic explanations based on things they aren't actually trying to find out about. If the article isn't clear enough on what a Ponzi scheme is without this, then the article needs fixing, not extending to cover arbitrary things that aren't in the subject. There is also the issue of what other 'non-Ponzi schemes' might get added by other 'ideologues' out to prove a point. If the US Social Security system is included as a 'non-Ponzi' example, why shouldn't someone add their pet hate national Taxation scheme or whatever? The whole thing could get totally out of hand. Wikipedia already has well-honed methods to prevent 'ideologues' inserting off-topic comments into articles. We don't normally make concessions to them by adding off-topic waffle, so why should we do it here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The comparison of Social Security in the U.S. to a Ponzi scheme has already been made at Social Security debate (United States). I don't see how it serves any utility here. Gobonobo  T C 03:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 * TheOtherBob writes, "Who's right? Well, we are, frankly -- but we can't actually make that decision.  We have to present both sides, be neutral, and come to the conclusion that it's disputed."  I disagree because I don't think that totally unjustified opinions must be given equal weight and respect.  "Some people say the Earth is round, some say it's flat, so the only conclusion we can come to is that it's disputed."  That's not how Wikipedia treats the shape of the Earth.  Our article on Earth unqualifiedly asserts (I almost wrote "flatly asserts") that it's a sphere.  The erroneous belief in a flat Earth is mentioned, the refutations of that belief are summarized, and the reader is directed to the Flat Earth article for a fuller treatment.

 * Our articles can't tackle every possible falsehood, but, as in the case of the flat Earth, we can and should address prominent ones. The Social-Security-as-Ponzi-scheme idea has been voiced by numerous elected officials (Perry being only the latest of a long line), by the prominent TV commentator Jim Cramer, and by a well-known think tank .  It was considered important enough to merit attention on the Social Security Administration's website.  A Google search for Ponzi "Social Security" -wikipedia generates more than two million hits.  In sum, this particular falsehood about Ponzi schemes is different from hypothetical other falsehoods.  We can provide this information without opening the floodgates to every lunatic theory that some lone blogger advances.

 * Nor does this topic entirely exclude our UK readers. It seems that the National Insurance plan hasn't come under quite the same level of attack, probably because we in the U.S. have a higher percentage of extreme right-wingers.  Nevertheless, the argument is not unknown, having been raised in the Sunday Times  and elsewhere.  The SSA's analysis of the issue would apply equally well to National Insurance and other similar plans, and thus will benefit even the non-American readers. JamesMLane t c 03:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 * "The SSA's analysis of the issue would apply equally well to National Insurance and other similar plans, and thus will benefit even the non-American readers". Sorry, but that is patronising crap. UK politics does not tag along on the US's coat-tails, and we don't need to have economics explained by analogy with US policy. I'm sure that this is true elsewhere too. Unless you can explain why US 'lunatic theory' should be given more prominence in Wikipedia than that of other lunatics, I see no reason to include off-topic waffle for the convenience of US domestic politics.

 * Perhaps what is needed for the US context is an article entitled US Social Security described as a Ponzi Scheme or something like that: I see no reason why a link couldn't be provided from this article. It doesn't belong here though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 * This is either a totally fringe idea, in which case it serves no purpose here, or it's a "very popular" one, in which case we can't dismiss it as a "flat earth" theory and must give it appropriate weight. And if we're to give it appropriate weight (as suggested by your argument about the millions of hits it receives), this article isn't the place to do it.  As Gobonobo points out, there's another article that already handles it in a clearer context.  Here the only real questions should be "does this example shed light on Ponzi schemes?" and "would some other example shed more light?"  And the answers are "no" and "probably," in my view; I don't see what this adds -- and whatever it might add, I'm pretty sure we could work into a less confusing and discursive example. --TheOtherBob 06:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 * You guys make good arguements for POV. However, censoring "unpopular" topics seems much like what the comunists due when trying to control the media and what their population is alound to know. The fact of the matter is, YES, social security is looking like a ponzi scheme. The reason for this, is as time goes on, younger generations will continue to pay in, while older generation benefit. Unfortunatly, that younger generation will not benefit from program as the older generation will, as the value of this security continues to drop. The program will eventually collaps, as too many people make claims, and the money isn't there to make the payoff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.182.254 (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

 * It isn't a question of censorship (which is hardly confined to 'communist' countries anyway). It is about (a) keeping this article on-topic, and (b) not trying to impose our personal opinions of what might be a Ponzi scheme into the article. If there were mainstream reliable sources which stated that the US Social Security system was a Ponzi scheme (and explained why), and there was serious debate about the issue, it might be worth considering. However, this seems to be very much a fringe viewpoint, and including it would be giving it undue weight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm late to this discussion but I think Social Security was actually an example made in Diamond's Overlapping generations model - with an infinite horizon, provided total output grows faster than obligations, a "Ponzi scheme" of this nature is actually sustainable. I can't recall who it was (Krugman?) that also compared it to the Hotel with an infinite number of rooms. In such a situation NOT running a "Ponzi scheme" is actually inefficient ("dynamic inefficiency") - and this is in fact one of the justifications from economic theory for social security (standard proofs of market efficiency require a finite set of goods - here we have an infinite number of goods, i.e. one at each period). So maybe we should put Soc Sec back in?Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Sorry, but I think that is off-topic, if not WP:OR. If systems such as the US Social Security scheme aren't Ponzi schemes (which they manifestly aren't), they do not belong in the article. Frankly, I think economic theory has little relevance to the article anyway - or at least, any theory that assumes 'efficiency' is particularly relevant to human economic behaviour. If you wan't to understand why Ponzi schemes work, study psychology, not economics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're misunderstanding the point. But incidentally, the whole article is total OR as it is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Rational Ponzi Games. 4:54 "Social Security the greatest and only true beneficial Ponzi scheme ever invented", attributed to Paul Samuelson. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is another source .Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent
Does 'unusually consistent' just mean 'inconsistent'? (first line) 94.172.114.173 (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think from the context it means 'exceptionally consistent'. It could be worded better though - I'll take a look at the sources, and see if I can clarify this. I suspect what it means is that a Ponzi scheme will be offered as supposedly giving a (high) fixed rate of return, where one would normally expect it to be variable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Social Security and not discussing it
If you were a student who came to Wikipedia to learn why Social Security is or is not a Ponzi Scheme, due to the appointed keepers of this topic no such information is available. Why? Are you afraid of presenting the free flow of information and ideas? At the very least, there should be a subtopic that has a paragraph explaining what is going on, and what could form the basis for suggesting SS is one, and why it may not be. Don't hide your heads in the sand. You will make Wikipedia irrelevant by doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.185.118.19 (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I suggest you read the section above entitled 'Social Security?'. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, not on the parochial agendas of certain U.S. politicians. And I'd hope that students wishing to learn about the U.S. Social Security scheme would look there, rather than here - or are they supposed to reach a conclusion, and then look for evidence to back it up? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I did read the discussion above. And obviously I am not the only one who thinks Wikipedia should be more informative. Whether one agrees with Perry or not is not the point - Wikipedia should also be the repository of all socially important information, not just what the moderators like you think is important. This is a fundamental flaw of Wikipedia on many topics - censoring of discussion and information. I am sure that you disagree of course since you come across as perfect and incapable of recognizing your flaws. Too bad.

 * Wikipedia doesn't have 'moderators'. We do however have policies, arrived at by consensus, and administrators given some additional powers to ensure that this consensus is maintained - though as it happens, I'm not an administrator either. As I have already stated, we base articles on external sources, not on political agendas. And by the way, discussions about whether U.S. Social Security is or isn't a Ponzi scheme is probably only 'socially important' to a minority of our readers - this is an international project, and our articles need to be 'informative' to more than a narrow section of the U.S. electorate. As I pointed out above, an article about everything somebody had described as a Ponzi scheme would be rather long... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

So someone in Russia who goes to the English version of Wikipedia to find out how the American Social Security system is similar to a Ponzi Scheme will find nothing, and fail to understand a point trying to be made that impacts all governments around the world, i.e., don't promise things you don't have the money for anymore. If you leave out all things political, then why is McCarthyism discussed in Wikipedia? Why are Democratic and Republican Parties topics? Besides, politics are what brought down the Berlin Wall and destroyed the Soviet Union among other things. And unfortunately minority politics destroyed the World Trade Centers. Further, it appears that because something is important only to a minority of readers, you advocate Wikipedia not including any information on it. So just who determines the "minorityness" exclusion? Just as Google killed Yahoo as a search engine, someone will takeover Wikipedia because of its self-appointed keepers reducing the relevancy of the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.185.118.19 (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

 * You misunderstand: we aren't excluding political topics. We are however asking that they be sourced, and dealt with in a balanced way. So far, All we've seen regarding this article is a few people wishing to label U.S. Social Security as a Ponzi scheme, without providing evidence from reliable sources (i.e. the non-fringe media) that it is a Ponzi scheme, or is even seen as one by anyone but the politically-motivated. Find the sources, and content can be added to the article, but you need to show their relevance first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm thinking, Andy, that we should have a section something like "Ponzi schemes in the news" (needs a better header than that, though). Here we could catalogue where the term Ponzi scheme is used to describe notable events, such as the Bernie Madoff scheme and also that notable folks such as the Governor of Texas (and others I presume) describe Social Security as a Ponzi scheme.  We can say that there is disagreement whether this is a Ponzi scheme or not, citing reputable sources.

 * Your thoughts? Madman (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

 * The trouble is that you are expanding the article topic well beyond the existing subject matter. I'd say that the U.S. "social security as a Ponzi scheme" subject would be better handled as a topic on its own - if there is enough coverage to merit substantial discussion, it doesn't belong here. We already discuss the issue briefly in Us social security, and expansion of that, or preferably creation of a new article if there is the material for it, would seem a better course. Discussing it here would seem to me to be a POV fork of the social security article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

While I also suggested including something about Social Security in the article above the thing is that: 1) people are going to try to do it in a wrong way (i.e. something like "Soc Sec is a scam like the Ponzi scheme" rather than the right way, based on actual economists' views, which would be something like "Soc Sec may be a type of Ponzi scheme that actually works for the benefit of everyone") and 2) at this point it's not necessary. I'd say clean up the rest of the article first, since it really needs it, then we can discuss putting something like that in there.  Volunteer Marek  18:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

 * If there were serious economists (as opposed to political pundits) who stated that the U.S. social security scheme was a Ponzi scheme, it just might merit mentioning in an expanded article - as what is very much a minority point of view. We need to remember that this is an international project, and this particular 'issue' is almost exclusively a U.S. concern. I don't see that it is relevant to this article as it currently stands - which is about criminal Ponzi schemes for which individuals have been convicted. Expanding content to suit the demands of a subsection of the U.S. political right wing looks like undue weight to me though. But yes, this article (and the related List of Ponzi schemes) needs a lot of work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If a girl hosts a tea party and tells her dolls and stuffed animals the US social security system is a "Ponzi scheme", then this doesn't automatically qualify as reliable source and NPOV... -- 84.142.55.111 (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

proper definition of a Ponzi scheme
Although the definition of a Ponzi scheme cited at the beginning of the article is very commonly quoted, it technically is not the complete definition, which is what spawns all the talk of whether Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. The standard economists' definition of a Ponzi scheme requires, in addition to the conditions already mentioned in the article, that a Ponzi scheme promise higher returns than can be obtained in the market. Without that condition, many completely legal financial arrangements would have to be considered Ponzi schemes on top of Social Security, including insurance and annuities companies. Social Security does not promise higher returns than what can be earned in the market, so it is not a Ponzi scheme. Gronteam 129.123.183.12 (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Totally agree. Seems perfectly logical and necessary to me, although I'd be loathe to disrupt the spirit of the discussion. I hope this doesn't subsequently turn into a disagreement over precise definition, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.115.160 (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Makes sense, certainly. What we really need though is a published reliable source we can cite for this. At the moment we are citing the US SEC for the definition, which might not be seen as an ideal source. It says that promises of "High investment returns with little or no risk" are a "red flag" for a Ponzi scheme, which more or less covers the point, but frankly I'd rather see an academic source or similar being cited for the whole definition, just to avoid any suggestion that the definition we use is somehow biased. I'm sure that such sources can be found, and I'll see if I can locate one. Meanwhile, if anyone else finds one, please either note it here, or add it to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Although a recognised technically accurate and complete definition from a citable source would be good, it is not necessary in order to refute the proposition that Social Security and National Insurance are Ponzi Schemes: the current definition will do just fine for that. I just ran across this article and the first thing that came into my mind when I read the first paragraph defining a Ponzi Scheme was, "That sounds just like National Insurance, to me!" (I'm from the UK.)  I opened the talk page just to make the point and found that almost the whole talk page is a discussion about it!  However, although it sounds like a Ponzi Scheme, National Insurance (and I assume that US Social Security is similarly administered) is NOT a Ponzi scheme if we go by the whole current definition in the first paragraph of the article, because neither UK NI nor US SS include any promise of "short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent".  The promise is of a long-term provision, that may not even match (in real terms) the level of the 'investment' (especially if you calculate the value of the 'investment' from the beginning of someone's working life until retirement using discounted cash flow).  Neither is anyone enticed into investing in it: they are compelled by government edict, although, it is true that in the UK at least, there may be some level of enticement to make "additional contributions". Hedles (talk) 08:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Seems to me that an important part of a Ponzi scheme is that the investors don't know how it works. In the case of Social Security, we know exactly how it works, and often enough, how much money is in the account. I might agree with what Madoff seems to have claimed after he was caught, though: that the national and world economies are pretty similar to Ponzi schemes. Note the assumption that, on the average, the economy should keep growing exponentially forever. As with exponential population growth, it has to stop somewhere. Gah4 (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

fractional reserve banking
How does fractional reserve banking relate to Ponzi Schemes? --197.228.46.75 (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Cryptocurrency

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recently among pop-finance reporters it's become in vogue to describe cryptocurrency as "Ponzi-like" without any clarification of how or why Ponzi schemes are a useful apparatus for understanding cryptocurrency - which seems to be chiefly to be a speculative asset bubble.

I would refrain from editing this article to suggest equivalency between Ponzi schemes and crypto because while the two may have some superficial similarities - and I certainly don't endorse cryptocurrency as an asset! - understanding one does not significantly aid in understanding the other.

Thanks for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.255.1.141 (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, you need to understand that you are removing content that has been supported by reliable sources and only providing your opinion as a reason why. If you can provide some reliable sources of your own here on the talk page to support your concerns, then perhaps some re-editing of the article would be in order. Until then, if you just continue to repeatedly remove the same content, you may find yourself blocked due to edit warring. - the WOLF  child  20:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

 * Happily, I'd like to you to take the time and read the original uncited edit written by aerojmac - specifically the section reading "Cryptocurrencies, with no functioning, tax collecting government to back up their value, are also considered Ponzi schemes. They offer abnormally high returns, need a continuous flow of new investors to prop the price up, transaction costs prohibit the sale of these "commodities," and there is no legitimate business function behind the market value. For instance, the market capitalization of Bitcoin on 11/22/2017 surpassed that of McDonald's." This edit has been flagged and pulled by several contributors before having the text re-added with the following citation: http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/21/investing/bitcoin-ponzi-scheme/index.html - a citation which in no way justifies the language added by aerojmac. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jathomas (talk • contribs) 20:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC
It's clear that speculative asset bubbles are an appropriate lens to view some Ponzi-like vehicles but two users are insisting on adding a formal, uncited reference calling crypto a Ponzi scheme with no clear citation, explanation or POV. Jathomas (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest you withdraw the RfC, rewrite it, then start again. --Ronz (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * First, clearly identify the content in dispute and it's sources. Is it this or the larger content? --Ronz (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added two references referring to cryptocurrencies being bubbles: 1, 2. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (Invited by a bot) This RFC is poorly formed. Please read WP:RFC and restate the request with a simple NPOV question. Jojalozzo (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Counter Punch is not a reliable source, but the Financial Times, Bloomberg, and government press releases that warn of crypto ponzis are reliable. I support adding commentary to this article calling cryptos ponzis if it is from a reliable source, but if the source is not a normal channel of communication for financial news, then it's probably not a reliable source. Waters.Justin (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As others have said, this isn't a well-formed RFC, but I can say with certainty that reliable sources referencing the idea of cryptocurrencies being a ponzi scheme at least exist (and people seem to be linking some above.) The question you probably want to be asking is whether those sources pass WP:DUE weight for inclusion on this page, which I think is slightly more complicated (IMHO a sentence might not be undue, but probably isn't required, either.  More than that would probably be excessive.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Continuing discussion
I'm also concerned that the source doesn't verify the information. --Ronz (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC) Please see:
 * U.S. Attorneys Office for the Southern District of New York (September 21, 2015) "Texas Man Pleads Guilty In Manhattan Federal Court To Operating Bitcoin Ponzi Scheme",Press Release.
 * U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Office of Investor Education and Advocacy (June, 2013) "Ponzi schemes Using virtual Currencies", Investor Alert, SEC Pub. No. 153.
 * Murphy, E.V.; Murphy, M.M., and Seitzinger, M.V. (October 13, 2015) "Bitcoin: Questions, Answers, and Analysis of Legal Issues", Congressional Research Service CRS Report R43339.
 * The Viking Cop (October 28, 2017) "Assessment of Cryptocurrencies and Their Potential for Criminal Use", Divergent Options.
 * Jacquez, T. (2016) "Cryptocurrency the new money laundering problem for banking, law enforcement, and the legal system", Utica College dissertation.
 * Klimasinska, K. (June 12, 2015) "Terrorists Eyeing Bitcoin, Social Media to Fund Jihad, U.S. Says" Bloomberg News.
 * Last but by no means least, User:David Gerard has a book about the topic: Gerard, D. (July 24, 2017) Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain, (London: CreateSpace) ISBN 978-1974000067.

EllenCT (talk) 14:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Try to explain Ponzi schemes to my natives in Yakutia
We had lately super popular investment firm here in Yakutsk where people lost all of their saving to make a 600% return, how I tried hard to convince some of my fellows not to do that, they did. Humans sometimes are irrational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertiealik (talk • contribs) 02:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

NYU journal article about trustee actions in relation to ponzi schemes
Found this journal article https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/NYU-Annual-Survey-68-2-Axelrod.pdf

The whole issue is at https://annualsurveyofamericanlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/68-2_full_issue.pdf

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

starting
The article doesn't say anything about how Ponzi schemes start. I suspect that many don't start out that way, but slowly turn into one, after which it is too hard to get out. Of course one would need a WP:RS, but I suspect one can be found. Gah4 (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No history section
Why does this article lack and kind of history section? Who started the first Ponzi scheme? Who coined the definition? Is there a list of historical ponzi schemes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.193.231 (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Was Baldomera Larra Wetoret (Madrid, 1833 - Havana, 1915) the author of the first Ponzi scheme?
Hello all, this is my first contribution to a Talk in Wikipedia so excuse me if I'm using it incorrectly.

In the Spanish, Catalan and Polish Wikipedia, there is an article about Baldomera Larra, daughter of the famous Spanish writer Mariano José de Larra. There, they claim (with some references, mostly from Spanish outlets) she was the first person to successfully pull of a Ponzi Scheme. There are news articles from the 26th of May of 1879 talking about her sentencing in Madrid and extradition from France, where she had escaped to. Does anyone know anything about this? Should it be included in this article?

Baldomera Larra's article is not yet translated to English. I am more than happy to do so if you think it is useful UtopianIsland (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

FTX as a Ponzi scheme
The cryptocurrency exchange FTX has just collapsed. Sam Bankman-Fried's promised 8% yield, based on his promotion of his ability to exploit a price differential between crypto exchanges hearkens right back to Charles Ponzi and his postage reply coupon scheme. This is not meant to suggest that all cryptocurrency markets are Ponzi schemes -- but FTX certainly seems to have been one. I suggest adding FTX to this article as the situation develops. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 08:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't followed it that close, but in any case you need a WP:RS. Gah4 (talk) 08:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't followed it that close, but in any case you need a WP:RS. Gah4 (talk) 08:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Sarah Howe example just looks like theft
The way Sarah Howe's "earliest recorded example of a Ponzi scheme" is written it just seems like theft rather than a scheme. 82.1.172.230 (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ponzi scheme


text:
Mahatma

Mahātmā (English pronunciation:, महात्मा, ) is an honorific used in India.

The term is commonly used for Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, who is often referred to simply as "Mahatma Gandhi". Albeit less frequently, this epithet has also been used with regard to such people as Basava (1131–1167), Swami Shraddhanand (1856–1926), Lalon Shah (1772–1890), Ayyankali (1863–1941), and Jyotirao Phule (1827–1890).

The term mahātmā has also been historically used for a class of religious scholars in Jainism; for the selected religious leaders in Theosophy; and for local religious teachers in the Divine Light Mission church.

In Theosophy
The word, used in a technical sense, was popularized in theosophical literature in the late 19th century, when Helena Blavatsky, one of the founders of the Theosophical Society, claimed that her teachers were adepts (or Mahatmas) who reside in Asia. According to the Theosophical teachings, the Mahatmas are not disembodied beings, but highly evolved people involved in overseeing the spiritual growth of individuals and the development of civilizations. Blavatsky was the first person in modern times to claim contact with these Adepts, especially the "Masters" Koot Hoomi and Morya. Alvin Boyd Kuhn wrote about mahātmās: The Masters whom Theosophy presents to us are simply high-ranking students in life's school of experience. They are members of our own evolutionary group, not visitants from the celestial spheres. They are supermen only in that they have attained knowledge of the laws of life and mastery over its forces with which we are still struggling.

After Blavatsky's death in 1891, numerous individuals have claimed to be in contact with her Adept Teachers. These individuals have stated that they are new "messengers" of the Masters and they have conveyed various esoteric teachings. Currently, various Theosophical movements refer to them as Ascended Masters, although their character and teachings are in several respects different from those described by Blavatsky.

Criticism
There has been a great deal of controversy concerning the existence of adepts. Blavatsky's critics have doubted the existence of her Masters. See, for example, W. E. Coleman's exposes.

K. Paul Johnson in his books speculates that the "Masters" that Blavatsky wrote about and produced letters from were actually idealizations of people who were her mentors. Aryel Sanat, author of The inner life of Krishnamurti: private passion and perennial wisdom, wrote that Johnson "claims in all of his books that there were no Masters at all in early Theosophical Society history, and that Helena Blavatsky invented them (as others had claimed she had invented her travels)". Sanat wrote that Johnson "deliberately ignores the main sources of evidence for their real physical existence". What Sanat thought these were is not made quite clear.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi as Mahātmā
According to some authors, Rabindranath Tagore is said to have used this title for Gandhi on 6 March 1915. Some claim that he was called Mahatma by the residents of Gurukul Kangadi in April 1915, and he in turn called the founder Munshiram a Mahatma (who later became Swami Shraddhanand). However, a document honoring him with the title "Mahatma" on 21 January 1915, in Jetpur, Gujarat, by Nautamlal Bhagvanji Mehta is preserved at the National Gandhi Museum in New Delhi, India. A private letter from Gandhi's friend Pranjivan Mehta to Gopal Krishna Gokhale in 1909 referred to Gandhi with the title and thus remains the earliest written record available to use the title. The use of the term Mahatma in Jainism to denote a class of lay priests, has been noted since the 17th century. A Mahatma is someone who practices Trikaranasuddhi.

In the Divine Light Mission
The Divine Light Mission (DLM) was a Sant Mat-based movement begun in India in the 1930s by Hans Maharaj and formally incorporated in 1960. The DLM had as many as 2,000 Mahatmas, all from India or Tibet, who taught the DLM's secret meditation techniques called "Knowledge". The Mahatmas, called "realized souls", or "apostles", also served as local leaders. After Hans Ji's death in 1966 his youngest son, Prem Rawat (known then as Guru Maharaj Ji or Bagyogeshwar), succeeded him. The young guru appointed some new Mahatmas, including one from the United States. In one incident, a prominent Indian Mahatma nearly beat a man to death in Detroit for throwing a pie at the guru. In the early 1980s, Prem Rawat replaced the Divine Light Mission organization with the Elan Vital and replaced the Mahatmas with initiators. The initiators did not have the revered status of the Mahatmas, and they were drawn mostly from Western followers. In the 2000s, the initiators were replaced by a video in which Rawat teaches the techniques himself.

In Jainism
Among the Jains the term Mahatma is used for the class for scholars who are householders.

Mahatma Hirananda of Mewar
The colophon of the Mewar Ramayana, described as "one of the most beautiful manuscripts in the world", states that the text, commissioned by Acharya Jasvant for the library of Maharana Jagat Singh I of Mewar, was written by one Mahatma Hirananda and finished on Friday 25 November 1650. Being a Jain scribe, Mahatma Hirananda incorporated traditional Jain scribal elements into the manuscript.

Jain Mahatmas in Dabestan-e Mazaheb
The Dabestan-e Mazaheb, written around 1655 CE, is a text that describes various religions and philosophies the author encountered. Its Section 11 is dedicated to Jainism. It states: "Similar to the dervishes of both classes (Monk and Jatis) is a third sect, called Mahá-átma; group separated from the Oswal Jains, have the dress and appearance of Jatis; however, do not pluck their hair with tweezers, but cut it. They live the social life and spread the teaching of Mahavir and other Jain Tirthankars in the society. They accumulate money, cook their meals in their houses, drink cold water, and take to them a wife." The term Mahatma was thus used for priests/scholars who were not celibate.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Mahatma


text:
440s BC

This article concerns the period 449 BC – 440 BC.

title: 440s BC


text:
Kirkstall Abbey

Kirkstall Abbey is a ruined Cistercian monastery in Kirkstall, north-west of Leeds city centre in West Yorkshire, England. It is set in a public park on the north bank of the River Aire. It was founded c. 1152. It was disestablished during the Dissolution of the Monasteries under Henry VIII.

The picturesque ruins have been drawn and painted by artists such as J. M. W. Turner, Thomas Girtin and John Sell Cotman.

Kirkstall Abbey was acquired by the Leeds Corporation as a gift from Colonel North and opened to the public in the late 19th century. The gatehouse became a museum, which is now part of the Leeds Museums & Galleries group.

Foundation
Henry de Lacy (died 1177), Baron of Pontefract and of Clitheroe, promised to dedicate an abbey to the Virgin Mary should he survive a serious illness. He recovered and agreed to give the Abbot of Fountains Abbey land at Barnoldswick in the West Riding of Yorkshire (now in Lancashire) on which to found a daughter abbey. Abbot Alexander with twelve Cistercian monks from Fountains went to Barnoldswick in May 1147 and after demolishing the existing church attempted to build the abbey on Henry de Lacy's land. They stayed for six years but found the place inhospitable. Abbot Alexander set about finding a more suitable place for the abbey and came across a site in the heavily wooded Aire Valley occupied by hermits.

Alexander sought help from de Lacy, who was sympathetic and helped acquire the land from William de Poitou. The monks moved from Barnoldswick to Kirkstall, displacing the hermits, some of whom joined the abbey, the rest being paid to move. The buildings were mostly completed between 1152, when the monks arrived in Kirkstall, and the end of Alexander's abbacy in 1182. Millstone Grit for building came from Bramley Fall on the opposite side of the river.

Buildings
The English Cistercian houses, of which there are remains at Fountains, Rievaulx, Kirkstall, Tintern and Netley, were mainly arranged after the same plan, with slight local variations. As an example, below is the groundplan of Kirkstall Abbey, one of the best preserved.

The church is of the Cistercian type, with a short chancel (3), and transepts (4) with three eastward chapels to each, divided by solid walls. The building is plain, the windows are unornamented, and the nave (1) has no triforium. The windows and doorways have round heads, whereas the vaulting arches are pointed and the moldings and capitals also show early Gothic features. During the 15th century, the great east window was replaced with a smaller one. The tower over the crossing was made higher in the 16th century, just before dissolution.

The cloister to the south (5) occupies the whole length of the nave. On the east side stands the two-aisled chapter house (7), between which and the south transept is a small sacristy, and on the other side two small apartments, one of which was probably the parlour (8). Beyond this is the calefactory or day-room of the monks. Above this whole range of building runs the monks' dormitory, opening by stairs into the south transept of the church.

On the south side of the cloister (5) there are the remains of the old refectory, running, as in Benedictine houses, from east to west, and the new refectory (12), which, with the increasing occupancy of the house, superseded it, reoriented, as is usual in Cistercian houses, from north to south. Adjacent to this apartment are the remains of the kitchen, pantry and buttery. The arches of the lavatory are to be seen near the refectory entrance. The western side of the cloister is occupied by vaulted cellars, supporting on the upper story the dormitory of the lay brothers (9).

 * 1) Nave
 * 2) Tower
 * 3) Presbytery
 * 4) North and south transepts
 * 5) Cloister
 * 6) Library (part of east range, with 7 & 8)
 * 7) Chapter house (part of east range, with 6 & 8)
 * 8) Parlour (part of east range, with 6 & 7)
 * 9) Lay brothers' dormitory
 * 10) Reredorter
 * 11) The Lane/ malt house
 * 12) Refectory
 * 13) Warming house
 * 14) (unknown)
 * 15) Novices' quarter
 * 16) Abbot's lodgings
 * 17) Visiting abbot's lodgings
 * 18) Infirmary

Extending from the south-east angle of the main group of buildings are the walls and foundations of a secondary group of buildings (17, 18). These have been identified as the hospitium or the abbot's house, but they occupy the position in which the infirmary is more usually found. The hall was a very spacious apartment, measuring 83 ft. in length by 48 ft. 9 inches in breadth, which was divided by two rows of columns. The fish-ponds lay between the monastery and the river to the south. The abbey mill was situated about 80 yards to the north-west. The millpool may be distinctly traced, together with the goit or mill stream.

Dissolution and later history
On 22 November 1539 the abbey was surrendered to Henry VIII's commissioners in the Dissolution of the monasteries. It was awarded to Thomas Cranmer in 1542, but reverted to the crown when Cranmer was executed in 1556. Sir Robert Savile purchased the estate in 1584, and it remained in his family's hands for almost a hundred years. In 1671 it passed into the hands of the Brudenell family, the Earls of Cardigan. Much of the stone was removed for re-use in other buildings in the area, including the steps leading to the river bank by Leeds Bridge, in the town centre.

During the 18th century the picturesque ruins attracted artists of the Romantic movement and were painted by artists including J. M. W. Turner, John Sell Cotman and Thomas Girtin. In 1889 the abbey was sold to Colonel John North, who presented it to Leeds City Council. The Council undertook a major restoration project and the abbey was opened to the public in 1895.

The African American novelist William Wells Brown visited Kirkstall Abbey in 1851, writing about his experience. Using poetry and poetic language, he described the 'pensive beauty' of the desolate ruins in their 'pastoral luxuriance' showing his appreciation of British literature as well as an interest in nature and local history.

Little excavation took place before 1890, after which William St John Hope led an investigation of the abbey walls and some trees were removed. Extensive excavations were carried out during the 1950s by Leeds City Museums staff (now Leeds Museums & Galleries) under the direction of W. V. Wade of Leeds University.

The abbey today

The abbey is a Grade I listed building and scheduled ancient monument. After a £5.5 million renovation programme there is a new visitor centre with interactive exhibits which illustrates the history of the abbey and the lives of the monks. Entry to the Abbey itself is via the visitor centre.

The 23.5 hectare grounds surrounding the abbey form a public park which includes landscaped grounds, open grassland, tennis courts, children's play area, rugby union and football pitches.

On the other side of the main road, the Grade II* listed former abbey gatehouse now forms the Abbey House Museum.

Cultural Events
The Leeds Shakespeare Festival, performed by the British Shakespeare Company, took place annually in the cloisters from 1995 until 2009. The abbey grounds are a public park, and are used for occasional events such as the annual Kirkstall Festival and the Kirkstall Fantasia open-air concerts.

The Abbey was also used on 19 March 2011 for the live BBC Three event Frankenstein's Wedding... Live in Leeds. A live music drama starring Andrew Gower and Lacey Turner as fiancees Victor Frankenstein and Elizabeth Lavenza.

On 10 and 11 September 2011 the Kaiser Chiefs played two concerts at Kirkstall Abbey to a maximum audience of 10,000 on each day.

The BBC Television series Gunpowder (2017) used Kirkstall Abbey as a filming location.

title: Kirkstall Abbey


text:
Merostomata

Merostomata is a class of chelicerate arthropods that contains the extinct Eurypterida (sea scorpions) and the extant Xiphosura (horseshoe crabs). The term was originally used by James Dwight Dana to refer to Xiphosura only, but was emended by Henry Woodward to cover both groups.

Etymology
The name "Merostomata" derives from the Greek roots μηρός (meros, "thigh") and στόμα (stoma, "mouth"), in reference to the animals' possession of appendages which are mouthparts at their proximal end, but swimming legs at their distal end.

History
The scientific consensus at the beginning of the 20th century was that these two marine groups were closely related, and only more distantly related to the terrestrial Arachnida. Some more recent analyses suggest the grouping Merostomata is not monophyletic, with Xiphosura being basal to a clade comprising Eurypterida and Arachnida. Other recent analyses support the monophyly of this group. The Xiphosura are estimated to have diverged from the Arachnida.

The shared features of the two groups traditionally grouped in the Merostomata are now thought to be retentions of primitive conditions (symplesiomorphies), thus the name Merostomata has been recommended to be abandoned.

However, a 2022 analysis recovered the monophyly of Merostomata, as opposed to a monophyletic Arachnida, with Xiphosura as the only modern representative in a derived position, indicating the convergence of several characteristics that supposedly united the arachnids.

title: Merostomata


text:
Quantum suicide and immortality

Quantum suicide is a thought experiment in quantum mechanics and the philosophy of physics. Purportedly, it can falsify any interpretation of quantum mechanics other than the Everett many-worlds interpretation by means of a variation of the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, from the cat's point of view. Quantum immortality refers to the subjective experience of surviving quantum suicide. This concept is sometimes conjectured to be applicable to real-world causes of death as well.

As a thought experiment, quantum suicide is an intellectual exercise in which an abstract setup is followed through to its logical consequences merely to prove a theoretical point. Virtually all physicists and philosophers of science who have described it, especially in popularized treatments, underscore that it relies on contrived, idealized circumstances that may be impossible or exceedingly difficult to realize in real life, and that its theoretical premises are controversial even among supporters of the many-worlds interpretation. Thus, as cosmologist Anthony Aguirre warns, "[...] it would be foolish (and selfish) in the extreme to let this possibility guide one's actions in any life-and-death question."

History
Hugh Everett did not mention quantum suicide or quantum immortality in writing; his work was intended as a solution to the paradoxes of quantum mechanics. Eugene Shikhovtsev's biography of Everett states that "Everett firmly believed that his many-worlds theory guaranteed him immortality: his consciousness, he argued, is bound at each branching to follow whatever path does not lead to death". Peter Byrne, author of a biography of Everett, reports that Everett also privately discussed quantum suicide (such as to play high-stakes Russian roulette and survive in the winning branch), but adds that "[i]t is unlikely, however, that Everett subscribed to this [quantum immortality] view, as the only sure thing it guarantees is that the majority of your copies will die, hardly a rational goal."

Among scientists, the thought experiment was introduced by Euan Squires in 1986. Afterwards, it was published independently by Hans Moravec in 1987 and Bruno Marchal in 1988; it was also described by Huw Price in 1997, who credited it to Dieter Zeh, and independently presented formally by Max Tegmark in 1998. It was later discussed by philosophers Peter J. Lewis in 2000 and David Lewis in 2001.

Thought experiment
The quantum suicide thought experiment involves a similar apparatus to Schrödinger's cat – a box which kills the occupant in a given time frame with probability one-half due to quantum uncertainty. The only difference is to have the experimenter recording observations be the one inside the box. The significance of this is that someone whose life or death depends on a qubit could possibly distinguish between interpretations of quantum mechanics. By definition, fixed observers cannot.

At the start of the first iteration, under both interpretations, the probability of surviving the experiment is 50%, as given by the squared norm of the wave function. At the start of the second iteration, assuming a single-world interpretation of quantum mechanics (like the widely-held Copenhagen interpretation) is true, the wave function has already collapsed; thus, if the experimenter is already dead, there is a 0% chance of survival for any further iterations. However, if the many-worlds interpretation is true, a superposition of the live experimenter necessarily exists (as also does the one who dies). Now, barring the possibility of life after death, after every iteration only one of the two experimenter superpositions – the live one – is capable of having any sort of conscious experience. Putting aside the philosophical problems associated with individual identity and its persistence, under the many-worlds interpretation, the experimenter, or at least a version of them, continues to exist through all of their superpositions where the outcome of the experiment is that they live. In other words, a version of the experimenter survives all iterations of the experiment. Since the superpositions where a version of the experimenter lives occur by quantum necessity (under the many-worlds interpretation), it follows that their survival, after any realizable number of iterations, is physically necessary; hence, the notion of quantum immortality.

A version of the experimenter surviving stands in stark contrast to the implications of the Copenhagen interpretation, according to which, although the survival outcome is possible in every iteration, its probability tends towards zero as the number of iterations increases. According to the many-worlds interpretation, the above scenario has the opposite property: the probability of a version of the experimenter living is necessarily one for any number of iterations.

In the book Our Mathematical Universe, Max Tegmark lays out three criteria that, in abstract, a quantum suicide experiment must fulfill:
 * The random number generator must be quantum, not deterministic, so that the experimenter enters a state of superposition of being dead and alive.
 * The experimenter must be rendered dead (or at least unconscious) on a time scale shorter than that on which they can become aware of the outcome of the quantum measurement.
 * The experiment must be virtually certain to kill the experimenter, and not merely injure them.

Analysis of real-world feasibility
In response to questions about "subjective immortality" from normal causes of death, Tegmark suggested that the flaw in that reasoning is that dying is not a binary event as in the thought experiment; it is a progressive process, with a continuum of states of decreasing consciousness. He states that in most real causes of death, one experiences such a gradual loss of self-awareness. It is only within the confines of an abstract scenario that an observer finds they defy all odds. Referring to the above criteria, he elaborates as follows: "[m]ost accidents and common causes of death clearly don't satisfy all three criteria, suggesting you won't feel immortal after all. In particular, regarding criterion 2, under normal circumstances dying isn't a binary thing where you're either alive or dead [...] What makes the quantum suicide work is that it forces an abrupt transition."

David Lewis' commentary and subsequent criticism
The philosopher David Lewis explored the possibility of quantum immortality in a 2001 lecture titled "How Many Lives Has Schrödinger's Cat?", his first academic foray into the field of the interpretation of quantum mechanics – and his last, due to his death less than four months afterwards. In the lecture, published posthumously in 2004, Lewis rejected the many-worlds interpretation, allowing that it offers initial theoretical attractions, but also arguing that it suffers from irremediable flaws, mainly regarding probabilities, and came to tentatively endorse the Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber theory instead. Lewis concluded the lecture by stating that the quantum suicide thought experiment, if applied to real-world causes of death, would entail what he deemed a "terrifying corollary": as all causes of death are ultimately quantum-mechanical in nature, if the many-worlds interpretation were true, in Lewis' view an observer should subjectively "expect with certainty to go on forever surviving whatever dangers [he or she] may encounter", as there will always be possibilities of survival, no matter how unlikely; faced with branching events of survival and death, an observer should not "equally expect to experience life and death", as there is no such thing as experiencing death, and should thus divide his or her expectations only among branches where he or she survives. If survival is guaranteed, however, this is not the case for good health or integrity. This would lead to a Tithonus-like deterioration of one's body that continues indefinitively, leaving the subject forever just short of death.

Interviewed for the 2004 book Schrödinger's Rabbits, Tegmark rejected this scenario for the reason that "the fading of consciousness is a continuous process. Although I cannot experience a world line in which I am altogether absent, I can enter one in which my speed of thought is diminishing, my memories and other faculties fading [...] [Tegmark] is confident that even if he cannot die all at once, he can gently fade away." In the same book, philosopher of science and many-worlds proponent David Wallace undermines the case for real-world quantum immortality on the basis that death can be understood as a continuum of decreasing states of consciousness not only in time, as argued by Tegmark, but also in space: "our consciousness is not located at one unique point in the brain, but is presumably a kind of emergent or holistic property of a sufficiently large group of neurons [...] our consciousness might not be able to go out like a light, but it can dwindle exponentially until it is, for all practical purposes, gone."

Directly responding to Lewis' lecture, British philosopher and many-worlds proponent David Papineau, while finding Lewis' other objections to the many-worlds interpretation lacking, strongly denies that any modification to the usual probability rules is warranted in death situations. Assured subjective survival can follow from the quantum suicide idea only if an agent reasons in terms of "what will be experienced next" instead of the more obvious "what will happen next, whether will be experienced or not". He writes: "[...] it is by no means obvious why Everettians should modify their intensity rule in this way. For it seems perfectly open for them to apply the unmodified intensity rule in life-or-death situations, just as elsewhere. If they do this, then they can expect all futures in proportion to their intensities, whether or not those futures contain any of their live successors. For example, even when you know you are about to be the subject in a fifty-fifty Schrödinger’s experiment, you should expect a future branch where you perish, to just the same degree as you expect a future branch where you survive."

On a similar note, quoting Lewis' position that death should not be expected as an experience, philosopher of science Charles Sebens concedes that, in a quantum suicide experiment, "[i]t is tempting to think you should expect survival with certainty." However, he remarks that expectation of survival could follow only if the quantum branching and death were absolutely simultaneous, otherwise normal chances of death apply: "[i]f death is indeed immediate on all branches but one, the thought has some plausibility. But if there is any delay it should be rejected. In such a case, there is a short period of time when there are multiple copies of you, each (effectively) causally isolated from the others and able to assign a credence to being the one who will live. Only one will survive. Surely rationality does not compel you to be maximally optimistic in such a scenario." Sebens also explores the possibility that death might not be simultaneous to branching, but still faster than a human can mentally realize the outcome of the experiment. Again, an agent should expect to die with normal probabilities: "[d]o the copies need to last long enough to have thoughts to cause trouble? I think not. If you survive, you can consider what credences you should have assigned during the short period after splitting when you coexisted with the other copies."

Writing in the journal Ratio, philosopher István Aranyosi, while noting that "[the] tension between the idea of states being both actual and probable is taken as the chief weakness of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics," summarizes that most of the critical commentary of Lewis' immortality argument has revolved around its premises. But even if, for the sake of argument, one were willing to entirely accept Lewis' assumptions, Aranyosi strongly denies that the "terrifying corollary" would be the correct implication of said premises. Instead, the two scenarios that would most likely follow would be what Aranyosi describes as the "comforting corollary", in which an observer should never expect to get very sick in the first place, or the "momentary life" picture, in which an observer should expect "eternal life, spent almost entirely in an unconscious state", punctuated by extremely brief, amnesiac moments of consciousness. Thus, Aranyosi concludes that while "[w]e can't assess whether one or the other [of the two alternative scenarios] gets the lion's share of the total intensity associated with branches compatible with self-awareness, [...] we can be sure that they together (i.e. their disjunction) do indeed get the lion's share, which is much reassuring."

Analysis by other proponents of the many-worlds interpretation
Physicist David Deutsch, though a proponent of the many-worlds interpretation, states regarding quantum suicide that "that way of applying probabilities does not follow directly from quantum theory, as the usual one does. It requires an additional assumption, namely that when making decisions one should ignore the histories in which the decision-maker is absent....[M]y guess is that the assumption is false."

Tegmark now believes experimenters should only expect a normal probability of survival, not immortality. The experimenter's probability amplitude in the wavefunction decreases significantly, meaning they exist with a much lower measure than they had before. Per the anthropic principle, a person is less likely to find themselves in a world where they are less likely to exist, that is, a world with a lower measure has a lower probability of being observed by them. Therefore, the experimenter will have a lower probability of observing the world in which they survive than the earlier world in which they set up the experiment. This same problem of reduced measure was pointed out by Lev Vaidman in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. In the 2001 paper, "Probability and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory", Vaidman writes that an agent should not agree to undergo a quantum suicide experiment: "The large 'measures' of the worlds with dead successors is a good reason not to play." Vaidman argues that it is the instantaneity of death that may seem to imply subjective survival of the experimenter, but that normal probabilities nevertheless must apply even in this special case: "[i]ndeed, the instantaneity makes it difficult to establish the probability postulate, but after it has been justified in the wide range of other situations it is natural to apply the postulate for all cases."

In his 2013 book The Emergent Multiverse, Wallace opines that the reasons for expecting subjective survival in the thought experiment "do not really withstand close inspection", although he concedes that it would be "probably fair to say [...] that precisely because death is philosophically complicated, my objections fall short of being a knock-down refutation". Besides re-stating that there appears to be no motive to reason in terms of expectations of experience instead of expectations of what will happen, he suggests that a decision-theoretic analysis shows that "an agent who prefers certain life to certain death is rationally compelled to prefer life in high-weight branches and death in low-weight branches to the opposite."

Physicist Sean M. Carroll, another proponent of the many-worlds interpretation, states regarding quantum suicide that neither experiences nor rewards should be thought of as being shared between future versions of oneself, as they become distinct persons when the world splits. He further states that one cannot pick out some future versions of oneself as "really you" over others, and that quantum suicide still cuts off the existence of some of these future selves, which would be worth objecting to just as if there were a single world.

Analysis by skeptics of the many-worlds interpretation
Cosmologist Anthony Aguirre, while personally skeptical of most accounts of the many-worlds interpretation, in his book Cosmological Koans writes that "[p]erhaps reality actually is this bizarre, and we really do subjectively 'survive' any form of death that is both instantaneous and binary." Aguirre notes, however, that most causes of death do not fulfill these two requirements: "If there are degrees of survival, things are quite different." If loss of consciousness was binary like in the thought experiment, the quantum suicide effect would prevent an observer from subjectively falling asleep or undergoing anesthesia, conditions in which mental activities are greatly diminished but not altogether abolished. Consequently, upon most causes of death, even outwardly sudden, if the quantum suicide effect holds true an observer is more likely to progressively slip into an attenuated state of consciousness, rather than remain fully awake by some very improbable means. Aguirre further states that quantum suicide as a whole might be characterized as a sort of reductio ad absurdum against the current understanding of both the many-worlds interpretation and theory of mind. He finally hypothesizes that a different understanding of the relationship between the mind and time should remove the bizarre implications of necessary subjective survival.

Physicist and writer Philip Ball, a critic of the many-worlds interpretation, in his book Beyond Weird, describes the quantum suicide experiment as "cognitively unstable" and exemplificatory of the difficulties of the many-worlds theory with probabilities. While he acknowledges Lev Vaidman's argument that an experimenter should subjectively expect outcomes in proportion of the "measure of existence" of the worlds in which they happen, Ball ultimately rejects this explanation. "What this boils down to is the interpretation of probabilities in the MWI. If all outcomes occur with 100% probability, where does that leave the probabilistic character of quantum mechanics?" Furthermore, Ball explains that such arguments highlight what he recognizes as another major problem of the many-worlds interpretation, connected but independent from the issue of probability: the incompatibility with the notion of selfhood. Ball ascribes most attempts of justifying probabilities in the many-worlds interpretation to "saying that quantum probabilities are just what quantum mechanics look like when consciousness is restricted to only one world" but that "there is in fact no meaningful way to explain or justify such a restriction." Before performing a quantum measurement, an "Alice before" experimenter "can't use quantum mechanics to predict what will happen to her in a way that can be articulated – because there is no logical way to talk about 'her' at any moment except the conscious present (which, in a frantically splitting universe, doesn't exist). Because it is logically impossible to connect the perceptions of Alice Before to Alice After [the experiment], "Alice" has disappeared. [...] [The MWI] eliminates any coherent notion of what we can experience, or have experienced, or are experiencing right now."

Philosopher of science Peter J. Lewis, a critic of the many-worlds interpretation, considers the whole thought experiment an example of the difficulty of accommodating probability within the many-worlds framework: "[s]tandard quantum mechanics yields probabilities for various future occurrences, and these probabilities can be fed into an appropriate decision theory. But if every physically possible consequence of the current state of affairs is certain to occur, on what basis should I decide what to do? For example, if I point a gun at my head and pull the trigger, it looks like Everett's theory entails that I am certain to survive—and that I am certain to die. This is at least worrying, and perhaps rationally disabling." In his book Quantum Ontology, Lewis explains that for the subjective immortality argument to be drawn out of the many-worlds theory, one has to adopt an understanding of probability – the so-called "branch-counting" approach, in which an observer can meaningfully ask "which post-measurement branch will I end up on?" – that is ruled out by experimental, empirical evidence as it would yield probabilities that do not match with the well-confirmed Born rule. Lewis identifies instead in the Deutsch-Wallace decision-theoretic analysis the most promising (although still, to his judgement, incomplete) way of addressing probabilities in the many-worlds interpretation, in which it is not possible to count branches (and, similarly, the persons that "end up" on each branch). Lewis concludes that immortality argument is perhaps best viewed as a dramatic demonstration of the fundamental conflict between branch-counting (or person-counting) intuitions about probability and the decision theoretic approach. The many-worlds theory, to the extent that it is viable, does not entail that you should expect to live forever."

title: Quantum suicide and immortality


text:
Owain Gwynedd

Owain ap Gruffudd (c. 1100 – 23 or 28 November 1170) was King of Gwynedd, North Wales, from 1137 until his death in 1170, succeeding his father Gruffudd ap Cynan. He was called Owain the Great (Owain Fawr) and the first to be styled "Prince of Wales" and the "Prince of the Welsh". He is considered to be the most successful of all the North Welsh princes prior to his grandson, Llywelyn ab Iorwerth (Llywelyn the Great). He became known as Owain Gwynedd (Owain Gwyned, "Owain of Gwynedd") to distinguish him from the contemporary king of Powys Wenwynwyn, Owain ap Gruffydd ap Maredudd, who became known as Owain Cyfeiliog.

Early life
Owain Gwynedd was a member of the House of Aberffraw, the senior branch of the dynasty of Rhodri Mawr (Rhodri the Great). His father, Gruffudd ap Cynan, was a strong and long-lived ruler who had made the principality of Gwynedd the most influential in Wales during the sixty-two years of his reign, using the island of Anglesey as his power base. His mother, Angharad ferch Owain, was the daughter of Owain ab Edwin of Tegeingl. Owain Gwynedd was the second son of Gruffydd and Angharad. His elder brother, Cadwallon, was killed in fighting in Powys in 1132 against Meirionnydd.

Owain is thought to have been born on Anglesey about the year 1100, he was Gruffudd ap Cynan's second child, grandchild of Owain ab Edwin of Tegeingl via his mother Angharad ferch Owain. By about 1120 Gruffydd had grown too old to lead his forces in battle and Owain and his brothers Cadwallon and later Cadwaladr led the forces of Gwynedd against the Normans and against other Welsh princes with great success. His elder brother Cadwallon was killed in a battle against the forces of Powys in 1132, leaving Owain as his father's heir. Owain and Cadwaladr, in alliance with Gruffydd ap Rhys of Deheubarth, won a major victory over the Normans at Crug Mawr near Cardigan in 1136 and annexed Ceredigion to their father's realm.

Accession to the throne and early campaigns
On behalf of his father, Gruffudd ap Cynan, Gwynedd directed military operations to the "cantrefs of Meirionnydd, Rhos, Rhufoniog and Dyffryn Clwyd to Gwynedd proper", and it was against the Normans, with Gruffydd ap Rhys he secured a victory at the Battle of Crug Mawr and the temporary occupation of Kingdom of Ceredigion. On Gruffudd's death in 1137, Owain inherited a portion of a well-established kingdom, but had to share it with Cadwaladr. In 1143 Cadwaladr was implicated in the murder of Anarawd ap Gruffydd of Deheubarth, and Owain responded by sending his son Hywel ab Owain Gwynedd to strip him of his lands in the north of Ceredigion. Though Owain was later reconciled with Cadwaladr, from 1143, Owain ruled alone over most of North Wales. In 1155 Cadwaladr was driven into exile.

Owain took advantage of The Anarchy, a civil war between Stephen, King of England, and the Empress Matilda, to push Gwynedd's boundaries further east than ever before. In 1146 he captured Mold Castle and about 1150 captured Rhuddlan and encroached on the borders of Powys. The prince of Powys, Madog ap Maredudd, with assistance from Ranulf de Gernon, 4th Earl of Chester, gave battle at Coleshill, but Owain was victorious.

War with King Henry II
All went well until the accession of King Henry II of England in 1154. Henry invaded Gwynedd in 1157 with the support of Madog ap Maredudd of Powys and Owain's brother Cadwaladr. The invasion met with mixed fortunes. Henry's forces ravaged eastern Gwynedd and destroyed many churches thus enraging the local population. The two armies met at Ewloe. Owain's men ambushed the royal army in a narrow, wooded valley, routing it completely with King Henry himself narrowly avoiding capture. The fleet accompanying the invasion made a landing on Anglesey where it was defeated. Ultimately, at the end of the campaign, Owain was forced to come to terms with Henry, being obliged to surrender Rhuddlan and other conquests in the east.

Forty years after these events, the scholar Gerald of Wales, in a rare quote from these times, wrote what Owain Gwynedd said to his troops on the eve of battle:

"'My opinion, indeed, by no means agrees with yours, for we ought to rejoice at this conduct of our adversary; for, unless supported by divine assistance, we are far inferior to the English; and they, by their behaviour, have made God their enemy, who is able most powerfully to avenge both himself and us. We therefore most devoutly promise God that we will henceforth pay greater reverence than ever to churches and holy places'."

Madog ap Maredudd died in 1160, enabling Owain to regain territory in the east. In 1163 he formed an alliance with Rhys ap Gruffydd of Deheubarth to challenge English rule. King Henry again invaded Gwynedd in 1165, but instead of taking the usual route along the northern coastal plain, the king's army invaded from Oswestry and took a route over the Berwyn hills. The invasion was met by an alliance of all the Welsh princes, with Owain as the undisputed leader. However, apart from a small melee at the Battle of Crogen, there was little fighting, for the Welsh weather came to Owain's assistance as torrential rain forced Henry to retreat in disorder. The infuriated Henry mutilated a number of Welsh hostages, including two of Owain's sons.

Owain wrote two letters to Louis VII of France, describing himself as "King of Wales" and "King of the Welsh". In the last of his letters to Louis VII of France, he offered to become a vassal of the French king and assist in attacking Henry if the French would make war on him. This time Owain styled himself Waliarum princeps (prince of Wales), the first time he or anyone is known to have used such a title.

Henry did not invade Gwynedd again and Owain was able to regain his eastern conquests, recapturing Rhuddlan Castle in 1167 after a siege of three months.

Disputes with the church and succession
The last years of Owain's life were spent in disputes with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, over the appointment of a new Bishop of Bangor. When the see became vacant Owain had his nominee, Arthur of Bardsey, elected. The archbishop refused to accept this, so Owain had Arthur consecrated in Ireland. The dispute continued, and the see remained officially vacant until well after Owain's death. He was also put under pressure by the Archbishop and the Pope to put aside his second wife, Cristin verch Goronwy, who was his first cousin, this relationship making the marriage invalid under church law. Despite being excommunicated for his defiance, Owain steadfastly refused to put Cristin aside. Owain died in 1170, and despite having been excommunicated was buried in Bangor Cathedral by the local clergy. The annalist writing Brut y Tywysogion recorded his death "after innumerable victories and unconquered from his youth".

He is believed to have commissioned The Life of Gruffydd ap Cynan, an account of his father's life. Following his death, civil war broke out between his sons. Owain was married twice, first to Gwladus ferch Llywarch ap Trahaearn, by whom he had two sons, Maelgwn ab Owain Gwynedd and Iorwerth Drwyndwn, the father of Llywelyn ab Iorwerth (Llywelyn the Great), then to Cristin, by whom he had three sons including Dafydd ab Owain Gwynedd and Rhodri ab Owain Gwynedd. He also had a number of illegitimate sons, who by Welsh law had an equal claim on the inheritance if acknowledged by their father.

Heirs and successors

Gwynedd was married, firstly to Gwladus daughter of Llywarch ap Trahaearn and then his cousin Cristin verch Goronwy. Owain had originally designated Rhun ab Owain Gwynedd as his successor. Rhun was Owain's favourite son, and his premature death in 1146 plunged his father into a deep melancholy, from which he was only roused by the news that his forces had captured Mold Castle. Owain then designated Hywel ab Owain Gwynedd as his successor, but after his death, Hywel was first driven to seek refuge in Ireland by Cristin's sons, Dafydd and Rhodri, then Hywel was killed at the battle of Pentraeth when he returned with an Irish army. Dafydd and Rhodri split Gwynedd between them, but a generation passed before Gwynedd was restored to its former glory under Owain's grandson Llywelyn ab Iorwerth (Llywelyn the Great).

According to legend, one of Owain's sons was Prince Madoc of Whales (Madoc), who is popularly supposed to have fled across the Atlantic and colonised America.

Altogether, the prolific Owain Gwynedd is said to have had the following children from two wives and at least four mistresses:
 * Rhun ab Owain Gwynedd (illegitimate in Catholic custom, but legitimate successor in Welsh law);
 * Hywel ab Owain Gwynedd (illegitimate in Catholic custom, but legitimate successor in Welsh law);
 * Iorwerth mab Owain Gwynedd (the "flat nosed" from first wife Gwladys ferch Llywarch);
 * Maelgwn ab Owain Gwynedd (from first wife Gwladys ferch Llywarch) Lord of Môn (1169–1173);
 * Gwenllian ferch Owain Gwynedd;
 * Dafydd ab Owain Gwynedd (from second wife Cristin ferch Goronwy);
 * Rhodri ab Owain Gwynedd, Lord of Môn (1175–1193) (from second wife Cristin ferch Goronwy);
 * Angharad ferch Owain Gwynedd;
 * Margaret ferch Owain Gwynedd;
 * Iefan ab Owain Gwynedd;
 * Cynan ab Owain Gwynedd, Lord of Meirionnydd (illegitimate);
 * Rhirid ab Owain Gwynedd (illegitimate);
 * Madoc ab Owain Gwynedd (illegitimate) (speculative/legendary);
 * Cynwrig ab Owain Gwynedd (illegitimate);
 * Gwenllian II ferch Owain Gwynedd (also shared the same name with a sister);
 * Einion ab Owain Gwynedd (illegitimate);
 * Iago ab Owain Gwynedd (illegitimate);
 * Ffilip ab Owain Gwynedd (illegitimate);
 * Cadell ab Owain Gwynedd (illegitimate);
 * Rotpert ab Owain Gwynedd (illegitimate);
 * Idwal ab Owain Gwynedd (illegitimate);
 * Other daughters.

Fiction
Owain is a recurring character in the Brother Cadfael series of novels by Ellis Peters, often referred to, and appearing in the novels Dead Man's Ransom and The Summer of the Danes. He acts shrewdly to keep Wales' borders secure, and sometimes to expand them, during the civil war between King Stephen and Matilda, and sometimes acts as an ally to Cadfael and his friend, Sheriff Hugh Beringar. Cadwaladr also appears in both these novels as a source of grief for his brother. Owain appears as a minor character in novels of Sharon Kay Penman concerning Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine (When Christ and His Saints Slept and Time and Chance). Her focus with respect to Owain is on the fluctuating and factious relationship between England and Wales.

title: Owain Gwynedd