Well, yes, you absolutely should take the one box to get a million. But there’s no retrocausality involved, just a prediction.
“Should” makes no sense to me there unless the claim is that your action affects the result.
So you’ll be the first customer of my new firm of financial advisors? Its based entirely advising you to sell everything you own, borrow every cent you are able, to try and buy a Bugatti Veron. That will surely cause you to earn 10s of millions of dollars. Of course you aren’t going to reject the evidence that of 500 buggati Veyron owners every single one has a net worth of over 10 million, yet a similar set of 500 non Buggati Veron owners not a single one has a net worth of more than 10 million.
How many of your clients bought a Bugatti Veron first and then acquired ten millions dollars?
None of them?
Well, I’ll pass on taking your financial advice. Apparently owning a Bugatti Veron doesn’t cause you to acquire ten million dollars.
Now on your other piece of financial advice. The one where you advise me if I should take one box or two.
How many people got a million dollars by taking the two boxes? None of them, you say.
Well, how many people got a million dollars by taking just the one box? All of them, you say.
And what’s your advice on how many boxes I should take? You’re saying two.
I think once again I’ll be passing on taking your financial advice.
Exactly the same number who received the million dollars before choosing to take one box.
All these people doubting the predictive ability of the computer just floor me. I’m betting Palantir could predict with stunning accuracy what any American with an online presence would do in a wide variety of situations. Have you really never had the interwebs throw up an ad for a product you had only thought about shopping for? I know I have.
There are numerous examples of women getting ads for baby products before they knew they were pregnant. If you don’t think computers know a lot about how you think, you are not paying attention.
Again, the rules explicitly state that the amount in the box is fixed before you walk in and cannot now change.
Therefore: No matter how much faith you have in the machines predicive ability, the sum total of the boxes is £1000 higher than the total of just the opaque box
You have to take one box. By taking one box, you are proving you’re the kind of person who would take one box, which means the machine has already put a million in the box.
Once you’ve decided you’re a one-boxer, you know there’s definitely a million dollars in the box, so just be that.
I’m really not understanding what you are trying to say with that?
Correlation is not causation. Got it. No one in your super luxury car association who doesn’t already have ten million dollars buys the car. Reverse causation. And some things are just markers.
In this case all we have is a strong correlation: being someone who is choosing one box in the hypothetical is strongly correlated with getting a million dollars; being someone who is choosing two boxes is strongly correlated with getting a thousand dollars.
With that set of facts I hope to be a person who is going to choose one box when in that circumstance. Who makes that choice despite knowing that my choice is not changing what is already in the boxes, that my choice does not cause anything. It is a marker and I hope to have that marker.
I could consider it the same as hoping to be someone who has a gene variant associated with being a superager.
It may be a test like if I hear “Yani” or “Laurel”, and Laurel folk get the million. Or if you see the dress as blue and black or white and gold. The computer, from other data, knows who is going to be what result already.
Have you really never had the interwebs throw up an ad for a product you have no interest whatsoever in buying? Happens to me all the time.
ETA: and that’s really got nothing to do with whether you can somehow magically change what’s in the boxes by taking a different number of them.
That makes no sense because nobody received money before taking a box. So that’s off the topic.
Here’s the topic.
The people who have chosen one box have received a million dollars. The people who have chosen two boxes have received a thousand dollars.
But you’re saying that you’re going to choose two boxes and received both the thousand dollars and the million dollars.
What you haven’t done is explain why. You’re in the exact same situation that all of those other people were in. What makes you different from all of the other people who chose two boxes? Why are you going to get a different result than everyone else got?
You’re assuming that what you do at that point can change what’s in the boxes.
Yes they did! The money was in the box (or not) before they entered the room. And everyone takes that box, it’s a given.
No different to my Buggati owners.
You haven’t explained why you aren’t trying to buy a Buggati Veron. What makes you different from all those smart Buggati owners and dumb non Buggati owners?
No, I’m looking at the evidence. A thousand people have been in this same situation and I’ve seen the results. All of the people who choose two boxes got one thousand dollars. All of the people who chose one box got one million dollars.
I’m going to make the choice that the evidence has shown produces the better result. I’m picking one box.
And thinking that which choice you make can make any difference assumes that your choice can change what’s in the boxes.
Because you haven’t produced the evidence.
Your sportscar owners all owned ten million dollars before they bought their sportscar. So they are not examples of people who bought a sports car and then acquired ten million dollars.
I do not have ten million dollars. So I am not facing the same situation as all those other sports car owners. To convince me, you need to have evidence of a thousand people who didn’t have ten million dollars, bought a Bugatti Veron, and then acquired ten million dollars afterwards. Then I would buy the car. (Unless there was also a million people who didn’t have ten million dollars, bought a Bugatti Veron, and then didn’t acquire ten million dollars afterwards.)
And the money was in the box before they walked in the room! There is no causal relationship in either case just a very strong correlation
The evidence is right there. Every single.one of those Buggati Veyron owner is worth over 10M what makes you think you are different?
No it doesn’t.
I’m saying the evidence indicates Action #1 produces Result A and Action #2 produces Result B.
I’m not making any attempt to figure out how or why these actions produce these results. I’m just looking at the evidence of what happens.
They owned ten million dollars before they owned a Buggati Veron. I am different from them because I don’t own ten million dollars.