We’ll have to disagree. 1,000 heads in a row with a purportedly fair coin defies belief. That sample is plenty big.
I don’t care who the subjects are. Once the rules are explained there’s no plausible way everybody takes two boxes. Nope.
Yeah but it’s not a random choice. It’s an actual human being in a room with 1000 dollars. There are any number of ways that what we are told is true, but they made sure their prediction would be correct, without outright cheating. The most obvious way is they always, or almost always (maybe you have a couple of ringers) predict two box, and just phrase the problem in a way that will mean anyone in their right mind will take the 1000.
I mean, was everyone else told about how accurate their prediction was? Without that bit of information everyone will take two boxes and at no point does it say everyone was told that.
Predicting 100% is completely plausible. 50% one boxers is not.
Feels like you’re torturing the hypothetical to produce your preferred outcome.
No I’m just accepting human nature for what it is. If you put a 1000 humans in room with a grand and tell them they can take the money, 1000 of them, or very close to it, are going to take it.
There are a number of ways of making sure the “close to 1000” becomes a thousand that don’t involve magical all knowing computers able to predict the future. And other way that comes to mind. We aren’t told that only 1000 people were experiment on, only “it correctly predicted what 1,000 people would do when presented with the scenario you are about to face”. Maybe at 316 it got a one boxer (who left empty handed), so the 1000 referred to are actually number 317 to 1317.
There is a difference. In your second example, i assume the predictor is cheating, and that makes its choice contingent on mine.
Yeah, we’re getting nowhere again. And I will accept again that someone is wrong on the Internet.
And yet the future outcome will be the same in all cases. They look exactly the same
Case one: it is cheating and there is causation of player choice leading to a sleight of hand placing or removing the money.
Case two: both player choice and the prediction are caused by some aspects of the player’s nature that it was able to accurately assess, somehow, with high reliability.
In each of those two universes the outcome is that the person who takes the opaque box walks away with a million dollars and the one who takes two walks away with a thousand. I can’t by observation tell those two universes apart. Neither can you.
You however would opt to take the opaque box only in the first universe, that you are confident that it cheats. And take both in the one that you are less sure that it cheats.
I disagree! I really am finding the explanations intriguing. The point isn’t to convince though. That’s not gonna happen.
In the first, i also know know that half the people made each choice, and got the thing, and critically, i somehow know they aren’t confederates of the predictor.
I am also more likely to take the single opaque box in the game show version. I can believe someone is giving away $10k over and over again. That could plausibly be an entertainment budget for a popular show.
The hypothetical very clearly says that the previously predicted people were in the same situation as you, which means that they did have the problem explained to them, yes.
Indeed.
It says “it correctly predicted what 1,000 people would do when presented with the scenario you are about to face”. You can read that as “the scenario” including the part about being told what the (999, 998, etc) people before them had done, but could easily not. That would be a very obvious way to almost guarantee 100% accurate prediction without any cheating or God like computers.
The key point is one of these is far more likely than the other. They could totally remove the million when you choose two boxes, that I’d get (though it would be much easier just to not put it in to begin with). No one is cheating to give me a million dollars, versus just saying “wow! You are the first person to beat the all powerful super computer. Congratulations! Here is your certificate saying that, which is all you leave with.”
Heh, yeah. I still don’t trust anything that says it has a perfect prediction rate. This one sounds slightly more honest since it says it’s only 99.9% accurate, but it’s still ridiculous.
So still a two-boxer at hear, but I still might just grab one.
Yeah, I think that’s pretty much where I am. I feel like it would be stupid to leave a guaranteed $1000 on the table. $10 I can live with, and I might be intrigued and curious enough to do exactly that, even though I still maintain that if the money is already in the boxes and the amount can’t be changed, taking two boxes always guarantees that you do at-least-as-well-and-maybe-better than taking just one box.