Aside from the basic injustice of the predictor being right about one person or the other and them getting disparate results based on them being them...the real bummer is the disparity of outcomes of the predictor is wrong.
It's designed to be a gotcha question. The big issue here is that we don't know for sure whether or not the predictor actually has foreknowledge or not.dargscisyhp said:
MQB: There's a few ways this can go down.
If the predictor has knowledge of your choice then the choice and the prediction are causally connected and your strategy is optimal. If this is the case logically the prediction is dependent on your choice, whatever contrivance we you use to make this work. However, this is not the only way a predictor could make good predictions about your choice.
Consider an external set of variables that are highly correlated to your choice. Maybe a person who wears a blue shirt chooses A & B 80% of the time, whereas a person who wears a red shirt chooses A & B only 20% of the time. Maybe the shoes a person wears has a similar correlation. Keep going adding whatever things you can think of, and then let the predictor know the joint probability distribution given these variables. All of a sudden you have a predictor making highly accurate predictions without needing the predictions to be dependent on the choice at all. In this case, the optimal strategy is go A&B every time. When I originally read the problem I assumed something like this, because this doesn't come up against the philosophical problem of retrocausality, or other such things.
If you want to insist on the predictor having some form of foreknowledge of your choice then you are correct in your strategy, of course. But it's a very unnatural assumption because of the aforementioned problems, and if this is the case it seems kind of like a gotcha question.
Well, if you really want that $1 million, just convince yourself that the predictor is smart enough to know what you are going to pick, and your outcome will improve!k2aggie07 said:
Aside from the basic injustice of the predictor being right about one person or the other and them getting disparate results based on them being them...the real bummer is the disparity of outcomes of the predictor is wrong.
You proved my point: we don't know how the predictor does it (foreknowledge, shirt color, reading this forum, reading your mind, etc.), we just know he's good at it. We could come up with theories all day long and try to outsmart him, but in the end, he is exceptionally skilled. I take that as 90, 95, 99% of the time he will predict correctly. So I choose Box A because more likely than not he would have predicted that and not both boxes because he would have predicted that too.dargscisyhp said:
MQB: There's a few ways this can go down.
If the predictor has knowledge of your choice then the choice and the prediction are causally connected and your strategy is optimal. If this is the case logically the prediction is dependent on your choice, whatever contrivance we you use to make this work. However, this is not the only way a predictor could make good predictions about your choice.
Consider an external set of variables that are highly correlated to your choice. Maybe a person who wears a blue shirt chooses A & B 80% of the time, whereas a person who wears a red shirt chooses A & B only 20% of the time. Maybe the shoes a person wears has a similar correlation. Keep going adding whatever things you can think of, and then let the predictor know the joint probability distribution given these variables. All of a sudden you have a predictor making highly accurate predictions without needing the predictions to be dependent on the choice at all. In this case, the optimal strategy is go A&B every time. When I originally read the problem I assumed something like this, because this doesn't come up against the philosophical problem of retrocausality, or other such things.
If you want to insist on the predictor having some form of foreknowledge of your choice then you are correct in your strategy, of course. But it's a very unnatural assumption because of the aforementioned problems, and if this is the case it seems kind of like a gotcha question.
It's meant to be nebulous.kurt vonnegut said:
I still say 'exceptionally skilled' is nebulous.
BusterAg said:It's meant to be nebulous.kurt vonnegut said:
I still say 'exceptionally skilled' is nebulous.
Pretty much. It gets talked about in philosophy circles because most people believe that there is a correct answer, and have a high conviction that their answer is the right answer, and that people that disagree with them are wrong. What makes that interesting is that the number of people who would pick both boxes is close to 50%. So, almost half of the world is very sure that almost half of the rest of the world is wrong, and vice versa.kurt vonnegut said:BusterAg said:It's meant to be nebulous.kurt vonnegut said:
I still say 'exceptionally skilled' is nebulous.
Is the OP supposed to be one of those questions where there isn't really a right or wrong answer, but how you answer it is supposed to reveal something about yourself?
Like what would you do if you had a million dollars.
This is funny. Well done.AstroAg17 said:
Two boxes at the same time
AstroAg17 said:
Let's replace the predictor with an omniscient god, let's replace the million dollars with everlasting life, and let's replace the thousand dollars with sinful pleasures.
If you take the earthly pleasures, god will know and you won't get box A. If you plan on box A and put aside earthly pleasures, you'll get it.
We've just replaced the uncertainty of whether the predictor will correctly guess your choice with the uncertainty of whether such a God exists. The OP was secretly Pascal's wager.
kurt vonnegut said:
Porn and adultery are the first and only examples you can think of earthly pleasures that might give someone joy?
Drum5343 said:kurt vonnegut said:
Porn and adultery are the first and only examples you can think of earthly pleasures that might give someone joy?
Certainly not the only. But what earthly pleasures, that bring lasting joy, do I have to give up in order to follow God?
Yeah, you are a B guy.Texaggie7nine said:
I think the biggest variable to need to know for me would be what the sample size of the being "always" getting it right and how many chose both. It would need to be enough that would demand that my current logic cannot come up with a satisfactory explanation other than the predictor having some ability that defies logic.
If that is the case, I would also take the choice that defies logic which would be to only pick B.
kurt vonnegut said:Drum5343 said:kurt vonnegut said:
Porn and adultery are the first and only examples you can think of earthly pleasures that might give someone joy?
Certainly not the only. But what earthly pleasures, that bring lasting joy, do I have to give up in order to follow God?
I won't pretend to know the specifics of the particular version of God you believe in, but likely the list of earthly pleasures you are expected to give up would include wealth, power (in some senses), self righteousness, pride, gluttony, greed. . . . there are a lot of examples outside of sex. Again, I only find it curious that only the sexual pleasures are the ones that come to your mind.
AstroAg17 said:
In certain settings that is the choice Christianity poses. Take a gay person again as an example. He may have to choose between obeying God and the person he loves.