Crazy Thought Experiment/Logic Problem

[Gold Bearer]

Firstly, 'B' clearly.

But the boxes are put in front of you and aren't tampered with before you get what's inside. Common sense seems to make the answer clearly both boxes. 1,100 or 1,001,000 for just box B or 100 or 1,000,000 for both?

Next, the inclusion of a computer at all is unimportant fluff. The Computer does nothing at all to influence the outcome unless the "Player" makes an assumption that the computer is trying to "Win" by predicting and somehow forcing the player to make a decision that will pay out less than 1,000,000.

No the computer isn't fluff at all. Without it they'd be absolutely no reason not to take both boxes.

It would be different *IF* the statement establishes that the Computer, because of it's ability to accurately predict the Player's actions, will be able to cheat the player out of a win X% of the time or similar. But it does not.

The computer has no effect on the player's decision, it can only predict it. If the player tries to outsmart the computer then that will be part of the decision making process.

If the computer is designed such that it has never been wrong, what makes YOU so special? We can invent mechanisms whereby the device works, be it quantum entanglement or monkey fondling reciprocating lubricators, but none of that is relevant. The fact is that the computer is always right. If you take both boxes then you lose. If you take box B you win. End of story.

If you take both boxes you can be tricked into thinking that you won, because box B did in fact contain 100 units. And if you take Box B only you can think yourself an idiot for leaving behind 1000 units. But neither of those outcomes were ever really possible.

I didn't say the computer can't be wrong, I said it never has been. If it can't be wrong then the question is not only simple and pointless but also unrealistic. How could anyone know that a prediction can't be wrong?

Does quantum entanglement result in a similar situation which is testable on a particle level? Yes. Will this ever scale to the type of "personal" problem you are talking about? Dunno. If I had to guess I'd say "no". As it may not be possible to maintain the property over a significant timescale.

No in principle or in practice? It can't be done because it's not possible or because it could never be done in practice but is theoretically possible?

That's the really interesting kind of thoughts that this provokes. Some people hold the view that it does work on all levels and it's just hidden behind a sea of variables that make it impossible to filter out individual instances so it looks like a completely linear progression of cause and effect. Interestingly, this hypothetical situation wouldn't be able to answer if that's true or not.

Science fiction it is

This doesn't need quantum mechanics to work. The situation is entirely possible however you interpret the uncertianty principle. It's just that your belief in it might decide the answer you give. If you interpret it one way then it is possible that the computer can't be wrong, if you interpret it the other way then it isn't. Even if you think it can be wrong, the fact that it never has been could be enough to tempt the player into choosing to take just box B, even if the amount in box B can't change.

If you believe that your decision can affect the amount in box B then you should choose to only take box B and do it as quickly and decisively as you can because that will make the computer program less likely to be wrong and you'll get 1,000,000 credits simply because you believe that you will.

If you believe that your decision can affect the amount in box B then you should take both boxes and you'll only get 1,100 because you didn't believe. So if you can force yourself to believe then you'll get 1,000,000 but if you don't belive it works that way then why bother trying to force yourself to believe it does? My brain is starting to hurt.

That is sort of an assumption; that you must go from certainty to doubt over time. You could might as well go from doubt and build up your certainty. Just saying...

But isn't the computer always right? Isn't that the whole point?

It's just never been wrong yet. It predicts behavioural responses so if you answer quickly and confidently then you could argue that you're making the computer being wrong for the first time less likely.

To me common sense screams to take both boxes. My head would be saying 'Fool! Why do you need to think about this? There's two boxes and you can have one or both, take both, obviously!'. But my heart would be saying 'The computer's never been wrong. If you just take box B then the computer will have known you were going to do that. Take box B and just be glad to have 1,000,000 galatic space credits.

Can box B contain 100 rupees if you only chose B? The way you describe it it sounds like B will only be reduced from 1.000.000 to 100 if you chose A+B and it was predicted.
That would mean choosing only B is always a safe choice. Especially because the amount in A is irrelevant.

You don't know, that's the point. It never has when both were picked but that doesn't mean it can't.

You can worry about how it works later when you're doing lines off a hooker's tummy'.

Choosing her tummy...

I like a nice tummy, but that's just where the line starts.

[knightkrawler]

I like a nice tummy, but that's just where the line starts.

Hint: it ends where it tickles, says the hooker.

[QorDaq]

Goldy,

Respectfully I disagree on the following;

B is the only choice, because 1,000,000 units is significantly better than 1,100 and very minimally less useful than 1,001,000 units. So risk vs. reward say's, losing 999,900 units is less desirable than possibly gaining an additional 1,000 over an essentially guaranteed 1,000,000 units.

And, yes the Computer is useless. Unless, again, the "Player" assumes they are trying to outwit the computer. Because; there is no need to outwit anything but oneself in this example. Either it's worth more to the Player to possibly gain the extra 1,000 and risk losing a promised 1,000,000 or its not.

Now, and again, *IF* the computer were actively trying to thwart the Player (which we've been told it's not), then its predictions don't mean a damn thing.

The only other Scenario I could envision that would force the Player to take both boxes, would be if there were an additional condition requiring the Player to gain more than 1,000,000 units.

e,g,

"The Player's loved one, is suffering a painful and terminal illness which will cost 1,001,000 units of currency to cure. This person will die within a day without the surgery." Or something similarly dark and manipulative.

Assuming no savings or other source were available for the extra required funds, it would make more sense to risk getting 1,100 because without the big payday, the loved one dies anyway.

Otherwise, there is NO reason to choose both boxes, all things being equal.

[knightkrawler]

I agree.
And I still stand by my assessment of the riddle as a religiously philosophical analogy, which everybody just overreads.
A model of justifying belief, so to speak.

[Gold Bearer]

Goldy,

Respectfully I disagree on the following;

B is the only choice, because 1,000,000 units is significantly better than 1,100 and very minimally less useful than 1,001,000 units. So risk vs. reward say's, losing 999,900 units is less desirable than possibly gaining an additional 1,000 over an essentially guaranteed 1,000,000 units.

And, yes the Computer is useless. Unless, again, the "Player" assumes they are trying to outwit the computer. Because; there is no need to outwit anything but oneself in this example. Either it's worth more to the Player to possibly gain the extra 1,000 and risk losing a promised 1,000,000 or its not.

Now, and again, *IF* the computer were actively trying to thwart the Player (which we've been told it's not), then its predictions don't mean a damn thing.

The only other Scenario I could envision that would force the Player to take both boxes, would be if there were an additional condition requiring the Player to gain more than 1,000,000 units.

e,g,

"The Player's loved one, is suffering a painful and terminal illness which will cost 1,001,000 units of currency to cure. This person will die within a day without the surgery." Or something similarly dark and manipulative.

Assuming no savings or other source were available for the extra required funds, it would make more sense to risk getting 1,100 because without the big payday, the loved one dies anyway.

Otherwise, there is NO reason to choose both boxes, all things being equal.

If think you've misread the question.

Without the computer:
'Congratulations on making it to the final round.'

'In front of you are two boxes mark A and B. Box A contains 1,000 galactic space credits.'

'Box B either contains 100 or 1,000,000 credits.'

'You have two choices. Would you like to take both boxes or just box B?'
'Huh? Both!'

With the computer:
'Congratulations on making it to the final round.'

'In front of you are two boxes mark A and B. Box A contains 1,000 galactic space credits.'

'Box B either contains 100 or 1,000,000 credits.'

'You have two choices. You can take both boxes or just box B, but there's a catch.'

'Goldy, our highly advance behavioural prediction quantum computer that's never been wrong has predicted what you will decide once you know the following information. If it predicted that you will choose both then box B contains 100 credits but if it predicted that you would only take box B then box B contains 1,000,000 credits. The choice is yours, you can have the money in just box B or take the money in both boxes.'

[Goblin-King]

As this is kinda going in circles now... Here's another good one!

You are on another gameshow - also in the future - and have the chance to win a hover-car.
Before you are 3 doors numbered 1, 2 and 3.
Behind one of the doors is the car, behind the other two there's a space-goat.

Once you pick a door, but before you open it, the host will open one of the other two doors and reveal a space-goat.
The host knows what's behind the doors. He will then allow you to pick either the door you chose or the remaining door he didn't open.

Should you switch door or stick with the one you first chose?

[Gold Bearer]

I know that one.

I got it wrong when I first heard it and was very confused when I heard the answer, until it clicked and I felt very silly.

I've got another good one but it's heard to explain because the hypothetical setup need for it is very contrived and kind of silly but the problem is really good.

[knightkrawler]

I'd pick the freakin' space-goat. Who knows what a space-goat in the future is good for.
Maybe it can transform into a space-hooker serving lines on her tummy.

[Gold Bearer]

I'd pick the freakin' space-goat. Who knows what a space-goat in the future is good for.
Maybe it can transform into a space-hooker serving lines on her tummy.

But what if it turns back while you're doing the line?

[Goblin-King]

I'd pick the freakin' space-goat. Who knows what a space-goat in the future is good for.
Maybe it can transform into a space-hooker serving lines on her tummy.

It'll destroy everything you love and then mock you.
You really don't want a space-goat.

Also let's hear the contrived setup GB