My question is why would anyone choose two boxes if the predictor is infallible? — Jacykow
it works on the ones you already have declared faith in. — Jacykow
I never like these predictor-type puzzles. If you have a predictor you can ask it to predict if its next statement will be a lie. If it says yes then then it told the truth, making the statement a lie. You get a contradiction.
Therefore there is no such predictor. The very concept of a predictor is contradictory, hence anything follows. All such puzzles are vacuous. I get that they're popular, but I don't see the appeal. — fishfry
I never like these predictor-type puzzles. If you have a predictor you can ask it to predict if its next statement will be a lie. If it says yes then then it told the truth, making the statement a lie. You get a contradiction.
Therefore there is no such predictor. The very concept of a predictor is contradictory, hence anything follows. All such puzzles are vacuous. I get that they're popular, but I don't see the appeal. — fishfry
I don't understand how it's a paradox. — Michael
There is an infallible predictor,...
Nozick avoids this issue by positing that the predictor's predictions are "almost certainly" correct, thus sidestepping any issues of infallibility and causality.
It isn't possible to win $0 or $1,001,000 and so those alleged outcomes ought not be considered. — Michael
But you can at least believe that more risk-averse people might prefer to (in effect) bank the grand. — bongo fury
If I pick A + B then there's a 99% chance that I win $1,000 and a 1% chance that I win $1,001,000. — Michael
Of course, if everyone reasoned that way, then the predictor would have had a lousy track record, contrary to the stated assumption. — SophistiCat
At the time when you are making your decision the money either already is or is not in the box. Your decision cannot change this fact (unless you entertain some strange ideas of backward causality). So if the money is in the box, then the choice is between $1,001,000 and $1,000,000. If the money is not in the box, then the choice is between $1,000 and nothing. Either way, you get more by two-boxing. — SophistiCat
So my faith is that my choice cannot affect the past. — unenlightened
It doesn't matter how many times prior to that final choice you flip between "...but he'll have predicted I'd think that, so I'll think the opposite...". The point is you can only perform those zig-zags a finite number of times and so a predictor could feasibly predict how many times you'd do it in the time you have available and so arrive at the correct answer. — Isaac
1. The predictors infallicity does not exclude the existance of free will. It does not take an all-knowing entity to outsmart or predict ones actions. Observing a game of poker or chess with a large discrepancy of skill clearly shows that humans are somewhat predictable. — Jacykow
1. The predictors infallicity does not exclude the existance of free will. It does not take an all-knowing entity to outsmart or predict ones actions. Observing a game of poker or chess with a large discrepancy of skill clearly shows that humans are somewhat predictable — Jacykow
My question is why would anyone choose two boxes if the predictor is infallible? — Jacykow
|00> + |11>
|player chooses box B only; box B contains $1000000> + |player chooses both boxes A and B; box B is empty>
|player chooses box B only; box B contains $1000000>
|player chooses both boxes A and B; box B is empty>
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.