Crazy Thought Experiment/Logic Problem

[cynthialee]

There is certainly something to be said that dice will fall in a somewhat predictable fashion, but they do seem to roll true to random over a large number of rolls. Provided of course that the dice are true.

Throwing the computer off could become more important to me than the money.
Also....why is it space money? Why not Dollars, Renminbi or even the soon to be useless English Pound? {sorry had to throw that barb at our English guests...lol. Don't worry, your pound will still maintain some semblance to currency.}
What is the value of a Credit? The value of the credit could color the way I choose. If it is a paltry sum I may not even show up to the game show. If it is a huge sum, then go for the gusto and take it all...

[whitebeard]

Not sure this has anything to do with "the universe."

It depends on how you interpret the uncertainty principle, whether you believe Schrödinger's cat (google it if you don't know what that is) is both alive and dead. If you don't think that's possible then you believe that the universe is deterministic and there can only be one option, take both boxes.

Well okay. As a logic problem, there is no problem. You said the computer existed, so from the problem statement I don't see how one can argue that it does not exist and does not function perfectly (so far). The empirical evidence suggested by the problem statement would lead me as a denizen of your Sci-fi reality to pick box B. With the expectation of the big pay out... And if it did not, then I would have the glory of being the first to show that the computer is no longer perfect.

And as long as we speak of this sci-fi reality, we are keeping to the forum rules.

[Anderas]

Also....why is it space money? Why not Dollars, Renminbi or even the soon to be useless English Pound? {sorry had to throw that barb at our English guests...lol. Don't worry, your pound will still maintain some semblance to currency.}
What is the value of a Credit? The value of the credit could color the way I choose. If it is a paltry sum I may not even show up to the game show. If it is a huge sum, then go for the gusto and take it all...

That's why the name of the currency is important! You take today's english pound, you would be happy to walk home with a million. You take colombian pesos, a million is not nothing. It's about 340 Dollar. But for people with a good job this is a sum you can play with.

The Burglar alarm depends on the mechanism.
* Either it is a simulation, then you can change the circumstances for example by calling the police. The moment you called the police, the simulation will recalculate and find out that the situation has changed and stop yelling.
* Or it is a time machine, then there is a paradoxon and you shouldn't play with it. Or it is your decisions which are actually setting off the alarm in the end.

[mitchiemasha]

Another weird aspect is that if you believe that you aren't capable of outsmarting the computer

You never said anything about it trying to out smart you or you it.

[mitchiemasha]

The empirical evidence suggested by the problem statement would lead me as a denizen of your Sci-fi reality to pick box B. With the expectation of the big pay out... And if it did not, then I would have the glory of being the first to show that the computer is no longer perfect.

That's exactly as i'd see it. In any case 1000 is f all, wouldn't change a thing, to me as equal as 100, I'd of lost nothing. Not that any of that matters as it's all just fluff for the sake of the deeper meaning of the question.

When i first read it i presumed they could change what is in the box.

[Goblin-King]

I'm still not seeing the conflict. Taking only B is the obvious choice.
I think the flaw in the scenario is that, as you describe it, if I only choose B there is no way it can be reduced to 100 Canadian Dollars.
If I choose both and the computer predicted it the amount is reduced.
But if I only choose B the amount stays the same, even if it was predicted.

Would it be a better scenario if there were two boxes each with 500,000 Ethiopian Birr?
I could choose one or both, but if I choose both and it was predicted, both boxes would be empty.
Then I would have the hard choice of taking the safe half mil or try and cheat the computer to get the full mil.
Would it ever be possible to actually get 1,000,000 Icelandic Kronar?


Also this is getting dangerously close to SCIENCE! Which is FORBIDDEN!
But everybody is playing nice so far...

[Anderas]

Yes I guess that scenario with 500000 danish crowns in each box would make more sense. It is a lot more temptation that way.

[Gold Bearer]

As a logic problem, there is no problem. You said the computer existed, so from the problem statement I don't see how one can argue that it does not exist and does not function perfectly (so far). The empirical evidence suggested by the problem statement would lead me as a denizen of your Sci-fi reality to pick box B. With the expectation of the big pay out... And if it did not, then I would have the glory of being the first to show that the computer is no longer perfect.

Okay you could prove the computer wrong but that's really outside the scope of the question's intended purpose.

There's three possible outcomes, everything else is fluff.
1. You loose. (100 credits)
2. You get a payout. (1,100 credits)
3. You win the jackpot. (1,000,000 or 1,001,000 credits)

The logical problem boils down to whether or not your decision can affect the outcome.

Another weird aspect is that if you believe that you aren't capable of outsmarting the computer

You never said anything about it trying to out smart you or you it.

I didn't need to. It predicts your thought processes and the decision that you'll finally come to. If you try to outsmart it then that's part of your decision making process.

I'm still not seeing the conflict. Taking only B is the obvious choice.

You've got two boxes of money sitting in front of you. One has a fairly decent amount of money, the other either has very little money or a lot of money. You can take both boxes or the one with the unknown amount of money. I think the obvious choice is to take both.

I think the flaw in the scenario is that, as you describe it, if I only choose B there is no way it can be reduced to 100 Canadian Dollars.
If I choose both and the computer predicted it the amount is reduced.
But if I only choose B the amount stays the same, even if it was predicted.

It would also stay at 100 credits if that's what the computer predicted.

Would it be a better scenario if there were two boxes each with 500,000 Ethiopian Birr?
I could choose one or both, but if I choose both and it was predicted, both boxes would be empty.
Then I would have the hard choice of taking the safe half mil or try and cheat the computer to get the full mil.
Would it ever be possible to actually get 1,000,000 Icelandic Kronar?

Same thing. I used 100, 1,000 and 1,000,000 because that's the way I read it. I just added the futuristic gameshow setting. The important thing is that there are three outcomes; loose, win and win big.

[whitebeard]

The logical problem boils down to whether or not your decision can affect the outcome.

According to the extended problem statement (e.g. it has never been wrong and played this game many times before) your decision IS the outcome. The only answer is B. This is the only logical interpretation. Of course I did add more information to your problem statement.

How about if I was allowed to ask the computer what money it put in which box BEFORE choosing... What happens then? My decision is predicated on what the computer tells me and I can force the computer to always be wrong. If the computer uses quantum entanglement to solve the problem, does the universe end the moment I decide that I will ask this question and choose the opposite? Or does the solver "give-up" and just become a random number generator?

Here I have linked the current computer's result to a "prior future result" which never occurs? Does that "prior future result" actually occur and exist in very real terms in what we would call another universe? And our observed result then depends on which (of infinitely many) universe we occupy. Is "causality" really a thing or just an emergent behavior we humans are unable to perceive beyond in a universe where space and time are interchangeable geometric dimensions?

The above is 100% a Science Fiction discussion and is fun. You said this discussion would indicate how we believe the universe woks. To be clear, I "believe" nothing about the univere.

[Gold Bearer]

The logical problem boils down to whether or not your decision can affect the outcome.

According to the extended problem statement (e.g. it has never been wrong and played this game many times before) your decision IS the outcome. The only answer is B. This is the only logical interpretation. Of course I did add more information to your problem statement.

But IS it? If you choose only box B and get the one million payout you could pat yourself on the back for making the right choice, but then I could say to you: "Why did you do that? You just risked going home with 100 for no reason. If you'd taken both boxes you'd now have an extra grand AND you would have been guaranteed at least 1,100."

How about if I was allowed to ask the computer what money it put in which box BEFORE choosing... What happens then? My decision is predicated on what the computer tells me and I can force the computer to always be wrong. If the computer uses quantum entanglement to solve the problem, does the universe end the moment I decide that I will ask this question and choose the opposite? Or does the solver "give-up" and just become a random number generator?

You can't ask the computer, it would provent it from being able to predicting your answer.

Here I have linked the current computer's result to a "prior future result" which never occurs? Does that "prior future result" actually occur and exist in very real terms in what we would call another universe? And our observed result then depends on which (of infinitely many) universe we occupy. Is "causality" really a thing or just an emergent behavior we humans are unable to perceive beyond in a universe where space and time are interchangeable geometric dimensions?

That's the real point of the question, I'm glad someone got it.

The above is 100% a Science Fiction discussion and is fun. You said this discussion would indicate how we believe the universe woks. To be clear, I "believe" nothing about the univere.

Nor do I!