|
Post by BlueDolphin on Apr 15, 2007 18:46:17 GMT -5
in my philosophy class, this one caused the most discussion but mainly because there were two camps and neither side could really be persuaded to switch.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Apr 15, 2007 19:52:07 GMT -5
you need to stop taking "philosophy for engineering students" then jeff.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Apr 15, 2007 20:09:10 GMT -5
What did the people who wanted to take both boxes argue?
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Apr 15, 2007 20:37:56 GMT -5
you need to stop taking "philosophy for engineering students" then jeff. Haha, well it was a general education thing, so I won't be taking any more of them. The people who wanted to take both boxes had this arguement: Once you step into the room, the Predictor has already acted. If you were to leave the room and find there was a million inside, that means there was a million inside from the moment you entered onwards. Nothing gets placed or removed after you enter. That means that physically speaking, if there was a million inside box B when you left, there had to be a million inside when you entered. If there was a million inside when you entered, then there is nothing to stop you from taking A as well and get more. The box cannot suddenly remove the contents if you took both. Think of someone who has just walked inside. Everything has been done and the money has been placed. There is nothing one can do to change the contents and nothing to be gained by taking just B. You get a thousand from A if he ends up being wrong. There was also this chart that was used in the book to see the payoffs. Here the benefits are represented in relative terms (higher numbers are better) Wouldn't you choose between two higher payoffs than two lower ones? | The Predictor was right | The Predictor was wrong | You take B only | 2 | 0 | You take both | 1 | 3 |
However I say that this table is incomplete and misleading because it doesn't take into account probabililites.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Apr 15, 2007 20:49:27 GMT -5
That argument would only work if you had ADD. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Random on Apr 15, 2007 23:01:21 GMT -5
I'm still of the opinion that theres absolutely no way that this should even be a discussion.
The thing flat out stated that the predictor was "hyper" accurate and had so far been 100% accurate. 100% accurate means 0% wrong. 0% wrong means that table is totally meaningless beyond the fact that it shows that taking box B only gives more than taking both.
You're not going to magically fool the predictor by changing your mind once you're inside. The predictor would have to take into account whether or not that is something you would do.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Apr 16, 2007 0:11:16 GMT -5
Your attitude mirrors that of those who spoke in class. The argument hinges on the idea that what is inside the box cannot be altered after you enter thus your choice doesn't change stuff after that point.
The whole reason this causes such a debate is because such a Predictor just messes with peoples' minds. Some people like me would just trust the Predictor but others would discount its actions once you are inside. Whether such a thing could even exist is doubtful.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Apr 16, 2007 1:15:30 GMT -5
Such a thing could not exist without going back and forth in time. If it could go back and forth in time, then there would be no way trick it.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Apr 16, 2007 1:43:38 GMT -5
Why would it need to go back in time? It's impossible for your true intent to consciously change; even if you "intended" to take just box B at first, you'd still need the intent to take both boxes once inside.
If the Predictor predicted your thoughts, then the problem would be completely different.
|
|
|
Post by Random on Apr 16, 2007 2:04:07 GMT -5
it would absolutely not be impossible without being able to go back in time
if you have enough info about someone and understand how they were its not that hard to predict what they will do
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Apr 16, 2007 3:03:05 GMT -5
it's impossible to do with 100% certainty. I personally like to believe in free will, and not that I am fated to make a particular action.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Apr 16, 2007 12:02:53 GMT -5
it would absolutely not be impossible without being able to go back in time if you have enough info about someone and understand how they were its not that hard to predict what they will do I don't think it would be "not that hard" since our brains may be deterministic but I think it is so complicated that even if it were so, we still appear to have free will anyways. I think it would be very difficult to get any sort of accurate predicition. I'm inclined to think that we don't have fate, but that is just me.
|
|
|
Post by bezzerkker on Apr 17, 2007 0:10:22 GMT -5
Hm... my way of choosing would be completely irrational. I'd clear my mind, walk in and flip a coin to decide for me. No matter what, I get to keep the shiny coin.
|
|
|
Post by Random on Apr 17, 2007 0:25:52 GMT -5
it has nothing to do with fate
depending on certain motivating factors, you will or will not do something, sometimes the line seems blurry, or you don't have enough information to be able to tell, but if you think about it its pretty clear, everyone has a way of making decisions that if you understand, you can use to predict actions
|
|
|
Post by henry on Apr 17, 2007 1:29:08 GMT -5
I don't see why there would be any reason not to take box B alone. I trust the predictor man.
|
|