From: Bubblecar

ID: 988492

Subject: re: November Chat

Answer seems obvious to me:

Newcomb’s problem divides philosophers. Which side are you on?

Newcomb’s problem has split the world of philosophy into two opposing camps. Two philosophers explain – then take the test yourself

https://www.theguardian.com/science/alexs-adventures-in-numberland/2016/nov/28/newcombs-problem-divides-philosophers-which-side-are-you-on

Divine Angel said:

Bubblecar said:

Answer seems obvious to me:

Newcomb’s problem divides philosophers. Which side are you on?

Newcomb’s problem has split the world of philosophy into two opposing camps. Two philosophers explain – then take the test yourself

https://www.theguardian.com/science/alexs-adventures-in-numberland/2016/nov/28/newcombs-problem-divides-philosophers-which-side-are-you-on

Dr David’s argument is the most ridiculous one I’ve ever heard. Take box B only.

JudgeMental said:

take both. boxes come in handy.

Bubblecar said:

Divine Angel said:

Bubblecar said:

Answer seems obvious to me:

Newcomb’s problem divides philosophers. Which side are you on?

Newcomb’s problem has split the world of philosophy into two opposing camps. Two philosophers explain – then take the test yourself

https://www.theguardian.com/science/alexs-adventures-in-numberland/2016/nov/28/newcombs-problem-divides-philosophers-which-side-are-you-on

Dr David’s argument is the most ridiculous one I’ve ever heard. Take box B only.

Yes. I think the problem is that it’s a poorly stated problem. What is “Super-Intelligent” supposed to mean? In this case I think one can be free to interpret it as meaning “Magically Prophetic” or suchlike.

diddly-squat said:

Bubblecar said:

Answer seems obvious to me:

Newcomb’s problem divides philosophers. Which side are you on?

Newcomb’s problem has split the world of philosophy into two opposing camps. Two philosophers explain – then take the test yourself

https://www.theguardian.com/science/alexs-adventures-in-numberland/2016/nov/28/newcombs-problem-divides-philosophers-which-side-are-you-on

it all come down to if you believe the being is capable of making perfect predictions of future actions…

it’s stupid

diddly-squat said:

JudgeMental said:

take both. boxes come in handy.

poor in life, rich in boxes

Re-threaded:

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

Divine Angel said:

Dr David’s argument is the most ridiculous one I’ve ever heard. Take box B only.

Yes. I think the problem is that it’s a poorly stated problem. What is “Super-Intelligent” supposed to mean? In this case I think one can be free to interpret it as meaning “Magically Prophetic” or suchlike.

Yes, I agree. Unless you take “super-intelligent” to mean having magical powers the best that even a perfect super intelligence can do is to categorise you according to whatever information she has, then make a decision based on what most people in that category would do. She will be right most of the time, but may be wrong up to 49.999…% of the time. Right or wrong, her decision has been made, so you should take both boxes.

Until you open box B it contains Schrödinger’s ₤1 million cheque…

The Rev Dodgson said:

Re-threaded:

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

Yes. I think the problem is that it’s a poorly stated problem. What is “Super-Intelligent” supposed to mean? In this case I think one can be free to interpret it as meaning “Magically Prophetic” or suchlike.

Yes, I agree. Unless you take “super-intelligent” to mean having magical powers the best that even a perfect super intelligence can do is to categorise you according to whatever information she has, then make a decision based on what most people in that category would do. She will be right most of the time, but may be wrong up to 49.999…% of the time. Right or wrong, her decision has been made, so you should take both boxes.

Trouble is, she’s referred to as a “Being” who has never made a bad prediction, which invites you to regard her as magical.

On the other hand, if there is even a small possibility that her “prediction” is based on time travel, so she really does know what you will do, then clearly you should take box B only.

I’ll give it some thought later.

In the meantime, how would getting one million dollars influence how much I have to pay in income tax?

quote=Cymek]
Wouldn’t it all come down to free will and if its real then no you can’t predict anything accurately even if that free will is determined by prior actions, personality, genetics, etc. If on the other hand we are just programme biological machines then perhaps you can but then again outside actions may alter this as well

Don’t get Bubblecar started on free will :)

mollwollfumble said:

I’ll give it some thought later.

In the meantime, how would getting one million dollars influence how much I have to pay in income tax?

It would reduce your tax bill, but increase your accountant bill.

Ha – I’ve just realised what was missing from my answer :)

I was right – follow Dr Ahmed and choose Box B. But this is why:

The information we were given – that’s she’s put the million is Box B – is part of the information included in the test. And: “The test was set by a Super-Intelligent Being, who has already made a prediction about what you will do.”

Thus, she’s told us where’s put the million, and has merely predicted that we’d want to choose the million :)

Choose Box B.

I’ll rephrase that :)

Ha – I’ve just realised what was missing from my answer :)

I was right – follow Dr Ahmed and choose Box B. But this is why:

The information we were given – that’s she’s put the million in Box B – is part of the information included in the test. And: “The test was set by a Super-Intelligent Being, who has already made a prediction about what you will do.”

Thus, she’s told us where she’s put the million, and has merely predicted that we’d want to choose the million :)

Choose Box B.

The Rev Dodgson said:

quote=Cymek]
Wouldn’t it all come down to free will and if its real then no you can’t predict anything accurately even if that free will is determined by prior actions, personality, genetics, etc. If on the other hand we are just programme biological machines then perhaps you can but then again outside actions may alter this as well

Don’t get Bubblecar started on free will :)

I was thinking how they personality profile serial killers and the various personality disorders/types according to psychology/psychiatry and if they indicate we are quite predictable and nothing more than complex pre-programmed biological machines

• I was thinking how they personality profile serial killers and the various personality disorders/types according to psychology/psychiatry and if they indicate we are quite predictable and nothing more than complex pre-programmed biological machines

A propensity towards something does not necessarily mean you will do that thing…

furious said:

• I was thinking how they personality profile serial killers and the various personality disorders/types according to psychology/psychiatry and if they indicate we are quite predictable and nothing more than complex pre-programmed biological machines

A propensity towards something does not necessarily mean you will do that thing…

No but past behaviour is often an indicator of future behaviour which is not quite the same thing I said but possibly a limit to our ability to really change our personality and actions long term.

• No but past behaviour is often an indicator of future behaviour which is not quite the same thing I said but possibly a limit to our ability to really change our personality and actions long term.

There is an autopilot setting where you will do what you have always done but there is a manual override where you can choose to do things differently…

I think it will be reasonable to suppose that this super-intelligent being will try to minimise her expenses, or those of her employer.

She will therefore word the problem in such a way as to maximise the number of people who choose box B, and never put anything in it.

You should therefore definitely choose box A.

But you have nothing to lose by taking box B as well, so choose both boxes.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I think it will be reasonable to suppose that this super-intelligent being will try to minimise her expenses, or those of her employer.

She will therefore word the problem in such a way as to maximise the number of people who choose box B, and never put anything in it.

You should therefore definitely choose box A.

But you have nothing to lose by taking box B as well, so choose both boxes.

Her predictions are always correct, so she’s already the richest Being on the planet, due to all her successful bets.

This is stupid.
Also, lol@the fact that it is in Guardian’s Science section.

dv said:

This is stupid.
Also, lol@the fact that it is in Guardian’s Science section.

If a tree falls in the Guardian’s Science section but there’s nobody around to hear it, does it make any sound?

Bubblecar said:

Her predictions are always correct, so she’s already the richest Being on the planet, due to all her successful bets.

That’s what they tell you.

Why would you believe it?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Her predictions are always correct, so she’s already the richest Being on the planet, due to all her successful bets.

That’s what they tell you.

Why would you believe it?

They’re offering me big £.

Aproblem worth solving is why is Bert Newcomb so named when he’s bald and has no need for a comb new or otherwise

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

This is stupid.
Also, lol@the fact that it is in Guardian’s Science section.

If a tree falls in the Guardian’s Science section but there’s nobody around to hear it, does it make any sound?

No, because it landed on the soft head of a “science” “editor”.

Let’s re-state the question to get rid of the implausible being who knows what we are going to do before we do it.

Suppose box A has $1000, and box B has a magic unicorn that will grant you three wishes, but only if you show your faith in the unicorn by choosing box B only.

Do you choose box B only in that case?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Let’s re-state the question to get rid of the implausible being who knows what we are going to do before we do it.

Suppose box A has $1000, and box B has a magic unicorn that will grant you three wishes, but only if you show your faith in the unicorn by choosing box B only.

Do you choose box B only in that case?

So this is a complicated way of saying “choose between $1000 and three wishes”.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Let’s re-state the question to get rid of the implausible being who knows what we are going to do before we do it.

Suppose box A has $1000, and box B has a magic unicorn that will grant you three wishes, but only if you show your faith in the unicorn by choosing box B only.

Do you choose box B only in that case?

So this is a complicated way of saying “choose between $1000 and three wishes”.

It’s “choose between $1000 and the promise of three wishes from a magic unicorn”, which I’d say was significantly different.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Let’s re-state the question to get rid of the implausible being who knows what we are going to do before we do it.

Suppose box A has $1000, and box B has a magic unicorn that will grant you three wishes, but only if you show your faith in the unicorn by choosing box B only.

Do you choose box B only in that case?

So this is a complicated way of saying “choose between $1000 and three wishes”.

It’s “choose between $1000 and the promise of three wishes from a magic unicorn”, which I’d say was significantly different.

You didn’t say anything about “the promise”. You stated that box B has a magic unicorn that will grant me three wishes if I choose box B.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

So this is a complicated way of saying “choose between $1000 and three wishes”.

It’s “choose between $1000 and the promise of three wishes from a magic unicorn”, which I’d say was significantly different.

You didn’t say anything about “the promise”. You stated that box B has a magic unicorn that will grant me three wishes if I choose box B.

It’s his first time, he’ll improve.

• You stated that box B has a magic unicorn that will grant me three wishes if I choose box B.

And if someone told you that you would take them at their word?

furious said:

• You stated that box B has a magic unicorn that will grant me three wishes if I choose box B.

And if someone told you that you would take them at their word?

Again, there is nothing in the puzzle, as just relayed by Rev, about being told. The conditions of the situation have been set in stone. I invite anyone to reword.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

So this is a complicated way of saying “choose between $1000 and three wishes”.

It’s “choose between $1000 and the promise of three wishes from a magic unicorn”, which I’d say was significantly different.

You didn’t say anything about “the promise”. You stated that box B has a magic unicorn that will grant me three wishes if I choose box B.

OK, so a statement rather than a promise.

dv said:

furious said:

• You stated that box B has a magic unicorn that will grant me three wishes if I choose box B.

And if someone told you that you would take them at their word?

Again, there is nothing in the puzzle, as just relayed by Rev, about being told. The conditions of the situation have been set in stone. I invite anyone to reword.

That’s just our assumption. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the conditions are set in stone.

Indeed, the statement as it stands would suggest that the probability of receiving the three wishes is as close to zero as makes no difference.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It’s “choose between $1000 and the promise of three wishes from a magic unicorn”, which I’d say was significantly different.

You didn’t say anything about “the promise”. You stated that box B has a magic unicorn that will grant me three wishes if I choose box B.

OK, so a statement rather than a promise.

Okay, so reword your puzzle including a mention of a statement, including who the statement is being made by.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

You didn’t say anything about “the promise”. You stated that box B has a magic unicorn that will grant me three wishes if I choose box B.

OK, so a statement rather than a promise.

Okay, so reword your puzzle including a mention of a statement, including who the statement is being made by.

Yeah, and sit up straight.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

furious said:

• You stated that box B has a magic unicorn that will grant me three wishes if I choose box B.

And if someone told you that you would take them at their word?

Again, there is nothing in the puzzle, as just relayed by Rev, about being told. The conditions of the situation have been set in stone. I invite anyone to reword.

That’s just our assumption. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the conditions are set in stone.

Indeed, the statement as it stands would suggest that the probability of receiving the three wishes is as close to zero as makes no difference.

Just so we are talking about the same version:
The question, as stated by you:

“Suppose box A has $1000, and box B has a magic unicorn that will grant you three wishes, but only if you show your faith in the unicorn by choosing box B only.”

The conditions of the choice are clear: there’s no implied uncertainty about the conditions, you haven’t said “and someone told you box B has a magic unicorn” etc.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

You didn’t say anything about “the promise”. You stated that box B has a magic unicorn that will grant me three wishes if I choose box B.

OK, so a statement rather than a promise.

Okay, so reword your puzzle including a mention of a statement, including who the statement is being made by.

Why should I?

Suppose Davros tells you that box A has $1000, and box B has a magic unicorn that will grant you three wishes, but only if you show your faith in the unicorn – and in Davros – by choosing box B only.

Do you choose box B only in that case?

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, so a statement rather than a promise.

Okay, so reword your puzzle including a mention of a statement, including who the statement is being made by.

Why should I?

Okay so fucking don’t, but your current version admits no uncertainty about the existence of the wish-giving unicorn. In the universe of your version, the existence of that unicorn is known.

Bubblecar said:

Suppose Davros tells you that box A has $1000, and box B has a magic unicorn that will grant you three wishes, but only if you show your faith in the unicorn – and in Davros – by choosing box B only.

Do you choose box B only in that case?

Given my knowledge of Davros’s personality, I’ll take the grand and run.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Okay, so reword your puzzle including a mention of a statement, including who the statement is being made by.

Why should I?

Okay so fucking don’t, but your current version admits no uncertainty about the existence of the wish-giving unicorn. In the universe of your version, the existence of that unicorn is known.

So the choice is obvious then

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Okay, so reword your puzzle including a mention of a statement, including who the statement is being made by.

Why should I?

Okay so fucking don’t, but your current version admits no uncertainty about the existence of the wish-giving unicorn. In the universe of your version, the existence of that unicorn is known.

That seems an extraordinary assumption to make, based on the information supplied.

Cymek said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Why should I?

Okay so fucking don’t, but your current version admits no uncertainty about the existence of the wish-giving unicorn. In the universe of your version, the existence of that unicorn is known.

So the choice is obvious then

Yes. The only possible sane choice in that version presented by Rev is to choose to take box B.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Why should I?

Okay so fucking don’t, but your current version admits no uncertainty about the existence of the wish-giving unicorn. In the universe of your version, the existence of that unicorn is known.

That seems an extraordinary assumption to make, based on the information supplied.

It’s not an assumption at all. It is a fixed term of the puzzle as precisely stated.

If someone presents you the Monty Hall puzzle, you don’t need to say “but what’s the chance that this Monty Hall exists? What if the doors don’t open? “ etc. The terms of the puzzle are explicitly stated: that’s the universe of the puzzle.

dv said:

Cymek said:

dv said:

Okay so fucking don’t, but your current version admits no uncertainty about the existence of the wish-giving unicorn. In the universe of your version, the existence of that unicorn is known.

So the choice is obvious then

Yes. The only possible sane choice in that version presented by Rev is to choose to take box B.

So the only possible sane choice is to assume that the description is a completely accurate description of real events in some alternative universe where wish-granting unicorns exist, rather than, for instance, being a brief description of a proposition put to someone on this planet, where wish-granting unicorns almost certainly do not exist?

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Cymek said:

So the choice is obvious then

Yes. The only possible sane choice in that version presented by Rev is to choose to take box B.

So the only possible sane choice is to assume that the description is a completely accurate description of real events in some alternative universe where wish-granting unicorns exist, rather than, for instance, being a brief description of a proposition put to someone on this planet, where wish-granting unicorns almost certainly do not exist?

The wording comes across as the unicorn and its abilities as a certainty

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Okay so fucking don’t, but your current version admits no uncertainty about the existence of the wish-giving unicorn. In the universe of your version, the existence of that unicorn is known.

That seems an extraordinary assumption to make, based on the information supplied.

It’s not an assumption at all. It is a fixed term of the puzzle as precisely stated.

If someone presents you the Monty Hall puzzle, you don’t need to say “but what’s the chance that this Monty Hall exists? What if the doors don’t open? “ etc. The terms of the puzzle are explicitly stated: that’s the universe of the puzzle.

That might be the way that these problems are usually discussed, but where the problem statement includes things that are clearly impossible, I’d suggest that the assumption that the problem statement is complete and correct is no longer applicable.

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Yes. The only possible sane choice in that version presented by Rev is to choose to take box B.

So the only possible sane choice is to assume that the description is a completely accurate description of real events in some alternative universe where wish-granting unicorns exist, rather than, for instance, being a brief description of a proposition put to someone on this planet, where wish-granting unicorns almost certainly do not exist?

The wording comes across as the unicorn and its abilities as a certainty

But how can it be a certainty when wish granting unicorns do not exist?

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Cymek said:

So the choice is obvious then

Yes. The only possible sane choice in that version presented by Rev is to choose to take box B.

So the only possible sane choice is to assume that the description is a completely accurate description of real events in some alternative universe where wish-granting unicorns exist, rather than, for instance, being a brief description of a proposition put to someone on this planet, where wish-granting unicorns almost certainly do not exist?

I invite you to restate the puzzle then. e.g. “Suppose someone tells you ‘Box A has $1000, box B has a wish giving unicorn, you can choose both or just Box B but if you choose both then the box B will be empty’…

The bold phrase changes the puzzle completely. My response to this modified version is that I’d assume that the person was just fucking with me or crazy, and I’d probably just take both boxes on the basis that they might at least contain something, or at least I’d get two boxes.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So the only possible sane choice is to assume that the description is a completely accurate description of real events in some alternative universe where wish-granting unicorns exist, rather than, for instance, being a brief description of a proposition put to someone on this planet, where wish-granting unicorns almost certainly do not exist?

The wording comes across as the unicorn and its abilities as a certainty

But how can it be a certainty when wish granting unicorns do not exist?

As stated in that version, unicorns exist.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The wording comes across as the unicorn and its abilities as a certainty

But how can it be a certainty when wish granting unicorns do not exist?

As stated in that version, unicorns exist.

Only if you assume that the problem statement is a complete and correct statement of everything relevant to the answer to the puzzle; but you have presented yourself a scenario that is consistent with the original statement in which unicorns do not exist.

I think it was said best when it as stated that this question is just plain stupid…

diddly-squat said:

I think it was said best when it as stated that this question is just plain stupid…

I think it’s an interesting example of how unstated assumptions affects peoples’ responses to a seemingly straightforward puzzle.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But how can it be a certainty when wish granting unicorns do not exist?

As stated in that version, unicorns exist.

Only if you assume that the problem statement is a complete and correct statement of everything relevant to the answer to the puzzle; but you have presented yourself a scenario that is consistent with the original statement in which unicorns do not exist.

Rev, not having a go at you, but unless the terms of the question are clearly stated we end up with different people arguing about different scenarios, fruitlessly.

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

I think it was said best when it as stated that this question is just plain stupid…

I think it’s an interesting example of how unstated assumptions affects peoples’ responses to a seemingly straightforward puzzle.

The problem quite clearly states that the being is able to make perfect predictions…

“The test was set by a Super-Intelligent Being, who has already made a prediction about what you will do. If Her prediction was that you would take both boxes, She left B empty. If Her prediction was that you would take B only, She put a ₤1 million cheque in it.”

Another example:

When someone presents the following classic puzzle:

You approach two magic talking doors. One door leads to the City of Truth, while the other door leads to the City of Liars. You do not know which door is which. You are able to ask only one question to determine which door is which. The door that leads to the City of Liars always speaks lies, while the door that leads to the City of Truth always speaks the truth. You want to go to the City of Truth. What question do you ask to determine which door leads to the City of Truth?

you don’t respond by saying “Well people who always tell the truth and people who always lie don’t exist so we have to respond knowing that those people aren’t really like that.

You take the puzzle as it stands. In the universe of this puzzle, absolute truthtellers and liars exist.

Stephen Hawking, you’re a bus driver. At your first stop, you pick up Davros and 29 Daleks. On your second stop, 18 of those Daleks get off, and at the same time 10 fallen trees and 2 boxes are loaded on board. At your next stop, 3 of those trees get off, and 13 Guardian science editors come on. On your fourth stop 4 of the remaining 10 passengers get off, 6 of those new 13 passengers get off as well, then 17 special snowflakes get on. In which box is the unicorn?

diddly-squat said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

I think it was said best when it as stated that this question is just plain stupid…

I think it’s an interesting example of how unstated assumptions affects peoples’ responses to a seemingly straightforward puzzle.

The problem quite clearly states that the being is able to make perfect predictions…

“The test was set by a Super-Intelligent Being, who has already made a prediction about what you will do. If Her prediction was that you would take both boxes, She left B empty. If Her prediction was that you would take B only, She put a ₤1 million cheque in it.”

sounds lime the premise behind pokie machines…

Bubblecar said:

Stephen Hawking, you’re a bus driver. At your first stop, you pick up Davros and 29 Daleks. On your second stop, 18 of those Daleks get off, and at the same time 10 fallen trees and 2 boxes are loaded on board. At your next stop, 3 of those trees get off, and 13 Guardian science editors come on. On your fourth stop 4 of the remaining 10 passengers get off, 6 of those new 13 passengers get off as well, then 17 special snowflakes get on. In which box is the unicorn?

Box B I reckon.

Choices include:
A
B
It doesn’t matter which
If A then B and if B then A

Also, financial reasoning allows us to consider any of the following:
Maximise the mean
Maximise the geometric mean
Maximise the inverse geometric mean
Minimise the probability of the worst possible outcome.
Maximise the probability of the best possible outcome.

Then there’s the definition of intelligence to consider.

mollwollfumble said:

I’ll give it some thought later.

In the meantime, how would getting one million dollars influence how much I have to pay in income tax?

If you won it, it’s tax free. If you’re deemed to have earned it, you pay tax.

Example: If you win a million dollars on a game show, you’ve won it and it’s tax free. If you win a reality show, you’ve earned it and pay tax.
I don’t know the criteria for winning vs earning.

Divine Angel said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’ll give it some thought later.

In the meantime, how would getting one million dollars influence how much I have to pay in income tax?

If you won it, it’s tax free. If you’re deemed to have earned it, you pay tax.

Example: If you win a million dollars on a game show, you’ve won it and it’s tax free. If you win a reality show, you’ve earned it and pay tax.
I don’t know the criteria for winning vs earning.

That is pretty weird. I would think someone on a game show has earned the money more than some sadsack who just managed not to get voted off.

How about income derived from unicorns?

dv said:

How about income derived from unicorns?

It’s paid in pixie dust, for which no exchange rate is currently available, and it’s therefore both inassesable and inexchangeable.

dv said:

Divine Angel said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’ll give it some thought later.

In the meantime, how would getting one million dollars influence how much I have to pay in income tax?

If you won it, it’s tax free. If you’re deemed to have earned it, you pay tax.

Example: If you win a million dollars on a game show, you’ve won it and it’s tax free. If you win a reality show, you’ve earned it and pay tax.
I don’t know the criteria for winning vs earning.

That is pretty weird. I would think someone on a game show has earned the money more than some sadsack who just managed not to get voted off.

How about income derived from unicorns?

winnings would be tax free, interest wouldn’t. or returns on investments.