User Controls
Poll: Answer.
- A+B
- B
Newcomb's Paradox Thread
-
2021-11-14 at 5:31 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai Strategy in the game theory sense, dalit. There are two strategies: two boxing and one boxing. B is already either empty or full, but we have information about whether or not it is likely to be full if a given strategy is chosen. Pretending otherwise is asinine, this is a fundamental part of the problem.
Why can't you grasp this?
You're the one misapplying the term. Your "strategy" has no impact on what is in the box, you just get $100 less. It's not more likely to be empty or full regardless of what you choose at that point. That depends entirely on what Omega thought and has nothing to do with what you decide how, unless you are claiming deciding something now will retroactively affect Omega's prediction in the past. You've denied this as well so... You are just wrong. You choosing anything now does not affect Omega's decision in the past in any way.
You can't get around this point so this far you've resorted to evading and repeating the same wrong thing over and over. -
2021-11-14 at 5:33 AM UTC
-
2021-11-14 at 5:35 AM UTC
-
2021-11-14 at 5:54 AM UTC
Originally posted by Nigger Nintendo You're the one misapplying the term. Your "strategy" has no impact on what is in the box, you just get $100 less.
The choices we make are literally "strategies" in the game theory sense, and if we're arguing about definitions now we should just stop. You should especially stop though, since it's definitely the correct application of the term and so help me god if you make me go look up the definition to slap you upside the head with it. Do it yourself, for me.
Originally posted by Nigger Nintendo It's not more likely to be empty or full regardless of what you choose at that point.
For this to be true, the predictor could not be reliable. Since the predictor is reliable, and we know that the predictor is likely to have predicted our answer, we know that B is more likely to contain a million dollars in the case where you choose B (because this would likely have been predicted). This does not imply that choosing B will magically fill B with money, just that if you have chosen B it's likely to have been filled the whole time (as Omega is likely to have predicted you would choose only B).
This is part of the thought experiment that you just completely ignore because you are blindsided by midwit meaningless and misguided concerns about retrocausality. You treat the reliable predictor as random number generator - the status of B as a complete crapshoot - when the thought experiment itself is telling you that no, this is not a complete crapshoot. -
2021-11-14 at 6:41 AM UTCThere are 2 strategies, which result in 4 outcomes based the predictor's decisions and yours. 2 of those outcomes are likely, 2 unlikely. Of the 2 that are likely, one nets $1000000 and one nets $1000. Simply choose the strategy for the outcome that is both likely and nets the most.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk. -
2021-11-14 at 6:47 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai There are 2 strategies, which result in 4 outcomes based the predictor's decisions and yours. 2 of those outcomes are likely, 2 unlikely. Of the 2 that are likely, one nets $1000000 and one nets $1000. Simply choose the strategy for the outcome that is both likely and nets the most.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
This may sound odd but do you also go by the name physchoManTits? -
2021-11-14 at 6:53 AM UTC
-
2021-11-14 at 7:48 AM UTC
-
2021-11-14 at 10:21 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai The choices we make are literally "strategies" in the game theory sense, and if we're arguing about definitions now we should just stop. You should especially stop though, since it's definitely the correct application of the term and so help me god if you make me go look up the definition to slap you upside the head with it. Do it yourself, for me.
No because you are still asserting some kind of retrocausality rather than understanding that Omega cannot change its prediction after the boxes are already set up. There's no strategy involved, you are only making the choice between $1000 less than whatever you got in Box B.For this to be true, the predictor could not be reliable.
No you are retard and can't wrap your head around the fact that the prediction was already made before your decision and can't change now.Since the predictor is reliable, and we know that the predictor is likely to have predicted our answer, we know that B is more likely to contain a million dollars in the case where you choose B (because this would likely have been predicted). This does not imply that choosing B will magically fill B with money, just that if you have chosen B it's likely to have been filled the whole time (as Omega is likely to have predicted you would choose only B).
This is part of the thought experiment that you just completely ignore because you are blindsided by midwit meaningless and misguided concerns about retrocausality. You treat the reliable predictor as random number generator - the status of B as a complete crapshoot - when the thought experiment itself is telling you that no, this is not a complete crapshoot.
No you are a monkey retard and cannot understand that Omega's prediction in the past has nothing to do with your choice at the moment whatsoever. -
2021-11-14 at 10:24 AM UTCI'm changing my answer
-
2021-11-14 at 5:18 PM UTC
Originally posted by Nigger Nintendo No because you are still asserting some kind of retrocausality rather than understanding that Omega cannot change its prediction after the boxes are already set up. There's no strategy involved, you are only making the choice between $1000 less than whatever you got in Box B.
No you are retard and can't wrap your head around the fact that the prediction was already made before your decision and can't change now.
No you are a monkey retard and cannot understand that Omega's prediction in the past has nothing to do with your choice at the moment whatsoever.
Originally posted by Meikai There are 2 strategies, which result in 4 outcomes based on the predictor's decisions and yours. 2 of those outcomes are likely, 2 unlikely. Of the 2 that are likely, one nets $1000000 and one nets $1000. Simply choose the strategy for the outcome that is both likely and nets the most.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
You cannot assert that all outcomes (again, in the game theory sense) are equally likely without flat out disregarding half of the thought experiment. That is all. -
2021-11-14 at 5:23 PM UTCI'm changing my answer back.
-
2021-11-14 at 5:32 PM UTCi took omega's challenge and ALL I GOT WAS THIS STUPID PLANTESSI T-SHIRT
-
2021-11-14 at 5:36 PM UTCI'm changing my answer back
-
2021-11-14 at 5:37 PM UTCI'm a plus b now. Fuck OMEGAMAN. piece of shit I hate him
-
2021-11-14 at 6:17 PM UTCRetrohomosexuality
-
2021-11-14 at 7:03 PM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai You cannot assert that all outcomes (again, in the game theory sense) are equally likely without flat out disregarding half of the thought experiment. That is all.
Nobody disregarded half the thought experiment, it's just not relevant to what you decide when you in the 2nd half. -
2021-11-14 at 7:03 PM UTC
-
2021-11-14 at 7:04 PM UTCHeh.
I have the answer. -
2021-11-14 at 7:04 PM UTCMore like Beta
