Free Will Philosophy Problem

[MichaelLee]

The answer is dependent upon whether you know what the "brilliant alien psychologist" will do. Obviously if you know his strategy, then you will always choose 2), but since he's brilliant and probably smarter than us........we don't know of his existence and therefore his strategy. Therefore, unless you're a complete moron, you'll always pick 1), and you'll always end up with the measly 1000.

[edthayer]

[ QUOTE ]
We do not know which is the law, so why risk the fact that the law may be free will?

[/ QUOTE ]

But if determinism is the law, there is no risk involved.

[AlienCorpse]

I wouldn't take any boxes. Do I win?

[dansalmo]

You must be > 99.9% certain that the alien will not know that you would take both boxes before taking both would be a good bet.

I do not think I would be so sure that an alien being capable of traveling through space for many light years could not also do pretty much anything he claims.

In fact I would probably sell him all my land for a few amazing trinkets that fascinated me but are essentially worthless on his home planet.

[CollinEstes]

This is just like the Princess Bride.


No but seriously if the if you knew for a fact that the Alien would know what you would do wouldn't you want to take only Box 2. Because the Alien would know that you would know that he would know what you would do.

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
Besides, the coin flip really begs the question. Just ammend the premise to disallow such things.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Suppose the premise were: "Four is a prime number." Would it be valid for me to disallow division by two?

The point of the coin flip is to demonstrate that we can -- in principle -- play the game in such a way as to negate his ability to predict my action. Disallowing this is tantamount to changing the game. You might as well give the alien a time machine so that he could look ahead to see what our choice was going to be, then tailor his action to fit that choice. This would insure that your solution is correct.

GG

[Girchuck]

its been pointed out, that some people might not want their choice to be predicted, and they will randomize their choice so that it cannot be predicted.

[Girchuck]

Some people's decision processes are even more random than a coin flip. A rational human being would be afraid that an alien is simply predicting that everyone is picking both boxes and putting a million in none of them. On the other hand, he'd weigh this with the chance that alien thinks on this level and does not put the million only in the boxes of people who think this way. The levels of thinking then escalate. Eventually, the coin flip seems like a best idea.
Anyway, there is a way to do a coin flip where the probability of one decision is less than 50% and the other is greater than 50% but you don't know which is which.

[PairTheBoard]

gasgod: "The point of the coin flip is to demonstrate that we can -- in principle -- play the game in such a way as to negate his ability to predict my action. "

The coin flip does NOT prove the alien cannot predict your action. By the premise he would predict your action of flipping the coin. His best prediction for your "choice" would have 50% accuracy and you will have succeeded in costing yourself money. You will NOT have succeeded in showing it's a false premise.

This seems like a very strange psychological reaction to the puzzle GG. When presented with the opportunity to make a million dollars by allowing the alien to predict your choice, you decide to "beat the alien" by essentially refusing to "choose" and reduce your EV by half a million dollars? What in the world are you thinking of? Why is it so important to you to defeat the alien? Isn't the truth that you are simply unwilling to accept the premise of a puzzle which says the alien can predict your choice if you actually make a choice? Flipping a coin IS begging the question because you are essentially refusing to choose - letting something or someone else choose for you.

You would accept the premise if the alien had a time machine but you won't accept the premise if the alien has predictive powers. Yet it's just a puzzle. Rather than accepting the premise and playing the puzzle you insist on arguing against the premise. What if it could be "proved" that the premise produces no logical inconsistentcies? Unlike "4 is a prime number". Could you then accept it just for puposes of playing the game? Or is the psychological block just too great?

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

"Some people's decision processes are even more random than a coin flip. A rational human being would be afraid that an alien is simply predicting that everyone is picking both boxes and putting a million in none of them. On the other hand, he'd weigh this with the chance that alien thinks on this level and does not put the million only in the boxes of people who think this way. The levels of thinking then escalate. Eventually, the coin flip seems like a best idea.
Anyway, there is a way to do a coin flip where the probability of one decision is less than 50% and the other is greater than 50% but you don't know which is which."
- Girchuck

Girchuck:"Some people's decision processes are even more random than a coin flip."

Now you're arguing against the premise. If you just accept the premise there's no need to argue against it. If you can't accept the premise there's no need to proceed with the imaginary box choices. You are not playing the game as it's defined. The question then becomes, why can't you accept the premise for an imaginary game?

Girchuck: "The levels of thinking then escalate. Eventually, the coin flip seems like a best idea."

Once again, there's no need for levels of thinking if you just accept the premise as given. If you accept the premise as given the coin flip is a terrible idea. It costs you half a million every time you do it. Again, the question becomes, why can't you accept the premise?

Girchuck: "Anyway, there is a way to do a coin flip where the probability of one decision is less than 50% and the other is greater than 50% but you don't know which is which"

This is just another attempt to escape the premise by further muddying the waters. Essentially you are refusing to make the choice yourself. You could also have a friend make the choice. Or you could throw two balls and whichever your dog runs to first decides your "choice". Whatever you do to avoid making the choice yourself is just going to cost you money compared to just choosing box two - IF you accept the premise. Once again, why do you have such a strong psychological block against simply accepting the premise of an imaginary game?

PairTheBoard