pull down to refresh

130 sats \ 5 replies \ @Scroogey 8h \ on: The Obvious Problem That No One Can Agree On - Veritasium science

The video doesn't address the first question I had: how do you explain that the predictor can possibly have such a high accuracy?

Surely there is at least one person that, in such a scenario, will throw a fair coin to decide. You're telling me that the predictor can reliably predict the coin toss. If this is true, the consequences of this fact are far greater than the amount of money I win in the game...

write
preview
1 sat \ 2 replies \ @south_korea_ln OP 5h

So, you're a two-boxer? Your current action/thinking having an impact on the predictor's choice is too hard to fathom in this gedanken experiment?

reply
12 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scroogey 5h

Yes, two-boxer.

I think the paradox comes because we have to assume an impossible precondition. An accurate predictor cannot exist as postulated. If it exists, our current understanding of the world is wrong.

reply
12 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scroogey 5h

It reminds me of Pascal's wager, and one-boxing is believing the predictor can exist.

reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @SwapMarket 1h

Not too many people will toss a coin. So predictions based on social media alone can be quite accurate. I too picked 2 boxes, because I don't believe in fate.

reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 2h

Too much philosophy for me

consequences of this fact are far greater than the amount of money I win in the game
what consequences are > 1 million dollars?
reply