Humans make decisions, especially when it comes to money, based upon the amount of money, the percent chance of getting that money, and how long they have to wait to get the money (obviously not a factor here); I'm simply restating what I learned in a freshmen health class and although I can't vouch for it's empirical correctness it seems generally true to me.
I would take my chance with the closed box, if I get the money great, if I don't my current monetary status doesn't really change and I don't really care.
As for choosing the closed box, your choosing that box doesn't affect the past, does it? And so either the money is there or it isn't, right? What you choose does not affect the past.
The being claims that he is able to predict what any human being will decide to do. If he predicted you would take only the closed box, then he placed a million dollars in it. But if he predicted you would take both boxes, he left the closed box empty. Furthermore, he has run this experiment with 999 people before, and has been right every time.
Really? Well in that case, Mr.Being, I'll go ahead and take the closed box!
I don't find it to be much of a paradox either. The opposing solutions (as was said in the link) aren't equally strong. In fact, it's more rational to take the closed box than both.
Well, this can be interpreted as a paradox because you can say:
A person's action does not affect the past - thus, the money either is there or not; and it has been there all along. The Being claims to predict the future; verified by many trials. The Being predicts your future, but it either is there or it isn't.
I believe that it is more of a human question rather than a paradoxical question. Would a human take what he can see, or believe in something that he doesn't? People who are religious might be more inclined to taking the closed box because they are already good at believing in things they don't see, but an athiest might also take the closed box, because he believes that the odds of the million being there are fifty-fifty. There are so many ways to look at this question, and so many ways to debate it. It is an intriguing paradox, especially when the being says he got it correct 999 times. That would be almost impossible, unless the being could read minds or something like that...
A person's action does not affect the past - thus, the money either is there or not; and it has been there all along.
Surely 1000 people (including you) would have chosen a different side? You could argue that The Being makes the prediction and immediately after confronts the experimentee. If it has been there all along and the people may have chosen something different, then The Being would have to take the money out then put it back in.
The Being claims to predict the future; verified by many trials. The Being predicts your future, but it either is there or it isn't
He claims to predict what decision you're going to make. It can either be prescience or actual scientific experimentation.
Oh. And do you know why he has gotten it right 999 times? Because 999 people chose the closed box because he blabbed about his powers!
Oh. And do you know why he has gotten it right 999 times? Because 999 people chose the closed box because he blabbed about his powers!
That right there is what takes away any aspect of a paradox. If the being wouldn't have discussed the results of the experiment I would be willing to bet that most individuals would take both boxes thus making it a viable experiment.
I'm not sure how I did it, but that was a fail. I'm just going to uh... *sweeps under the rug*
That right there is what takes away any aspect of a paradox
Thank ya
Example 1:
"I'll take the closed box!"
"I knew that! Here's the million dollars."
Example 2:
"I'll take the closed box!"
"Wait....crap, can we start over?"
If he claims to know your decision, call his bluff. If you win, you win. But if you don't get the million dollars, then you have just exposed him as a fraud.
