Yes, because as we established, Game 3 is equivalent to Game 2 which is equivalent to Game 1. It is most rational to choose (a) in Game 3, therefore it is most rational to choose (a) in Game 2, therefore it is most rational to choose (a) in Game 1.
This is confirmed by the fact that most one-boxers in Game 1 (and 2) will walk away with $1,000,000 whereas most two-boxers in Game 1 (and 2) will walk alway with $1,000.
are you not gonna explain your “it’s game theory” and why do you believe it is because of one-boxing that OB wins more when the one-boxing happens after the prediction? As if strategic dominance isn’t game theory too.
We don’t know. We can make up any scenario. It just has to be extremely accurate. Much moreso than just playing the odds. Incredibly moreso than randomly picking.
And it doesn’t get tricked.
Maybe it sees into the future, and is very occasionally wrong because, as Yoda said, always in motion is the future. Maybe it’s a telepath, knows what you’re planning, and the very rare mistakes are due to a very small percentage of people who aren’t planning to trick it, but suddenly get your idea after the prediction has been made.
What do you think determines the very accurate rate of prediction, and that also includes allowing you to trick it?
Incredibly moreso than randomly picking.
No. Just 51% is enough.
What do you think determines the very accurate rate of prediction, and that also includes allowing you to trick it?
I believe the prediction isn’t based on what happens after the prediction itself, is that unreasonable? Whatever you think the Newcomb problem is or should be about, do you agree that if we accept that then TB is the rational choice?
The predictions are unreasonably accurate. What is a possible explanation?
All of us one boxers already understand that the prediction isn’t based on what happens after the prediction. People who one box aren’t suggesting retro causality. Many of us are doing the “kind of people” logic. One boxers are the kind of people who leave with a million. Two boxers are the kind of people who leave with a thousand. I prefer to be the kind of person who leaves with more money, so I will. I will be that kind of person. You don’t need retro causality to commit to that and to leave (with overwhelming odds) with a million.
The predictions are unreasonably accurate. What is a possible explanation?
As I said, they don’t need to be, 51% is enough but more importantly, it doesn’t matter how. Suppose the prediction isn’t based on what happens after the prediction itself, then do you agree that TB is the rational choice? If not, you can present a method for prediction where you think OB is the rational choice.
All of us one boxers already understand that the prediction isn’t based on what happens after the prediction
I wouldn’t be so sure.
People who one box aren’t suggesting retro causality
I know, they can be conflating correlation with causality too.
One boxers are the kind of people who leave with a million. Two boxers are the kind of people who leave with a thousand. I prefer to be the kind of person who leaves with more money, so I will. I will be that kind of person.
“People taking IQ tests are the kind of people who have psychological troubles, I don’t want psychological troubles, therefore I will avoid taking IQ tests”
You don’t need retro causality to commit to that and to leave (with overwhelming odds) with a million.
No you just need to misunderstand the problem.
51% is not enough. We know that it is an extremely high percentage. That means it isn’t being tricked. That is an important part of this, and needs to be explained. You can’t ignore that and expect to win.
what’s the threshold then? when do we go from TB to OB?
I am not ignoring anything, to me it doesn’t really matter but you are presenting it as if you need a probability high enough. Other OB like Michael do hold that 51% is enough but you don’t apparently. So what’s your threshold and why?
The expected return calculation is:
OB = XY + 0(1-X)
TB = XZ + (Z + Y)(1-X)
Where X is the success rate of the predictor, Y is the value of the closed box, and Z is the value of the open box.
Whenever OB > TB it is rational to one-box and whenever TB > OB it is rational to two-box.
In the case that Z = 1,000 and Y = 1,000,000, OB = TB if X = 0.5005.
So if the success rate is > 50.05% then it is rational one box and if it’s < 50.05% then it is rational to two box. If it’s equal to 50.05% then it doesn’t matter.
To leave with more money we need to misunderstand the problem… No I don’t think that’s it little buddy
I dont think you do because if you did understand that you wouldnt be a OB. You have to understand that you dont know the rules of the game before entering the room but the prediction and money is placed before you enter. You literally have no control over anything,i dont think you understand that. If you wanna be the kind of person who leaves with more money you’ll choose both boxes because you have no clue the it has predicted and if the box has money or not but now in this moment since you want the most amount of money you will be a TB little buddy.
No idea how you say this so confidently knowing, evidentially, that one boxers do leave with more money.
Tell me how. In a scenario you got 1mil if i was in the same spot as you id have gotten 1mil and 1000. Which is more than you btw
The predictor is correct overwhelmingly about if people one box or not, that’s a given in the problem statement. That necessarily means two boxers overwhelmingly leave with 1000 and one boxers overwhelmingly leave with 1 million.
I’m not doing any fancy logic here. No complex arithmetic. One boxers get more money.
no, you are just saying that correlation is causality. Should have done fancy logic
I am just saying that? With that previous post, I am just saying that? I don’t know what you mean.
Yes. If from
That necessarily means two boxers overwhelmingly leave with 1000 and one boxers overwhelmingly leave with 1 million.
you infer that you should one-box; then yes, you are simply saying correlation is causality. I gave you many analogies by now. You are saying
“People taking IQ tests are the kind of people who have psychological troubles, I don’t want psychological troubles, therefore I will avoid taking IQ tests”
Do you not see how ridiculous that is?
I don’t even see the relationship with the iq thing. It just sounds like you’re saying random stuff.