@@Chainsawwieldingbear Still, VPNs are pointless and useless for the vast majority of Internet users, since TLS and HTTPS became standard about 10 years ago. You already have end-to-end encryption.
Regarding the 2nd case, you should only consider the decision you can affect, which leaves you to 2 scenarios, all of which choosing both would be better
The whole point of Scrodinger's Cat is that it doesn't make sense, it isn't supposed to, because Schrodinger meant it to point out that the Copenhagen interpretation doesn't make sense. I bet he'd be rolling in his grave if he knew pretty much every modern discussion of it makes it seem like it is in favour of the Copenhagen interpretation.
The other issue is that the Geiger counter, itself, is an observer. There is no mystical property of humanity, life, or consciousness that quantum mechanics relies on, simply someone or something taking a measurement.
He "learns" something everyday, hes just a script reader. True he doesn't find much of it interesting probably, hes in it for the money, not the knowledge.
A lot of mathematical “paradoxes” are confusing on a literary basis not a mathematical one and that is because they’re written by mathematicians not writers. They usually have some literary issue that favors one answer.
Zeno's paradoxes can be represented with calculus (well, I don't know about ALL of them), but weren't formulated that way at all. I'm not sure what you mean by "literary issue", but trying to express e.g. a limit in English is sort of like trying to bite your teeth. People discovered how to represent them with math, and discovered new ones in math, but I'm not sure that is ultimately consequential. Here, let me try this one: I don't understand why you put "paradoxes" in quotes. That's the paradox.
There is a huge problem with Schrodinger's Cat is an observer, as is the geiger counter. They both would break the superposition. The observer effect is a misnomer, it is not about a conscious person observing but interaction. The subatomic scale can not be passively observed, that level requires active observation, that means interacting which can alter the outcome.
Yes. I get frustrated when people think an observer is a sentient being merely looking at a particle. Subatomic particles can only be "observed " by firing other particles at them, thereby disturbing them and affecting their quantum state.
If that were true then we wouldn't know that electrons function as a wave until they collapse into one position (i.e. double-slit). In that way aren't we actually making a passive observation?
@@bluzfiddler1 No the passive observation by a person has nothing to do with it. I'm not going to write a novel here, but you can Google and learn more about the double-slit experiment, which is another very misunderstood experiment in physics.
@@ImAlwaysHere1 Okay, not looking for a novel or an explanation of the double-slit experiment. Really, my question was not even directed at you. But now, I'm not sure what your point about passive observation is.
And that it had been proclaiming its impending death from starvation for an hour before dinner time, thus demonstrating it already has memories of its own death.
@@BLACKLIKEJESUSThat wouldn’t make a difference because it’d be the same as dropping the cat without it being in a box and it would only land on its feet if it had enough time to do so before hitting the ground.
Quantum physics breaks down at the macroscopic level. I would have zero desire to be the person to test Schrodinger's cat - it won't work, its an absurd idea.
@@kaseyboles30if the cat is both dead and alive (50/50) then if a coin toss is done in a perfectly controlled envirnoment it should also give a 50/50 score. Correct?
@@statendrei5 Except the coin is either heads or tails or neither if the flip isn't finished, the cat is both until observed. It's not 50/50 for each possibility, it's 100% for both, until observed. The universe is under no obligation to be understandable or make sense to anyone.
@@kaseyboles30 doesn't that just mean you're doing a coin flip in the emptiness of space? (the so called perfect environment, no light, no gravity etc) Seems normal to me for the coin to be in a superposition indefinetly there but not on earth.
The quantum suicide paradox reminds me of the Simpsons episode where homer receives fliers about which football team will win, and to bet on, winning time after time. Lisa figures out that a bunch of these are sent to people with both teams winning on half, eventually and given enough initial fliers being sent out, you end up with a pool of people that only received winning fliers.
i saw this on an episode of some british magician's show. there was only 1 winner though and the other branches of the tree were hidden - thus the magic
My main question regarding the Schrodinger's Cat experiment is "who is the observer?" I suggest the cat can observe - so to speak - it's own death. Which renders the whole question of 'dead AND alive' moot. The second situation, the scientist and the fast killing machine: Even though the scientist is no able to 'react' while the device is killing him, he will 'observe' his own death. This is just as realistic as the original proposition.
I had the exact same thoughts about how you phrase the question related to the Sleeping Beauty problem when I first heard about it. Basically boils it down to: Do you want to be "ideally correct" or more "practically correct" on a daily basis? Like instead of guessing the probability, if Sleeping Beauty were to try and guess the actual coin flip (as you exemplified with the colored balls at the end there).
Schrödinger's cat has never made sense to me. The cat is either dead or alive, not both. Not knowing whether it is dead or not doesn't make it any more or less dead. The experiment mentioned here is even weirder. The scientist would die, not survive in an alternate universe 🤦🏼♀️
I've never liked this thought experiment either. What is "an observer"? Until everything in the universe knows the fate of the cat then it is both dead and alive - which obviously makes no sense.
Right. Like the idea that everytime you flip a coin, you create an alternate universe 😅😴 so ridiculous... To think every mundane action could create life.
@@cbnewham5633 If you go and look up the double slit experiment and the observer effect you can see how an "observer" influences the outcome of the experiment. (apparently, an actual person is necessary to collapse the wave function and make the particle "choose" which slit to go through) It's some wild stuff and really hints at a much stranger existence than we normally experience in our day-to-day lives.
Easy solution to the Newcomb paradox: the predictor can pound sand. His prediction does not and can not physically affect the chance of the mystery box having money in it. I know I'm delving into "How would you feel if you didn't have breakfast" but we can set this experiment up right now. Three boxes, one open with $1000, and two closed, one empty and one with a $1M check (so the weight difference is negligible). The observer would quickly notice that choosing the open box has no effect on which closed box has money in it, and the predictor cannot bend space-time and reach into an alternate universe to pick the lab rat that picks the wrong box. Only the lab rat himself will ever have any ability to change the outcome.
Even before I knew about quantum suicide as a thought experiment a young me already had the idea in my head, especially since I've survived more near death experiences than I can remember (and had already by my early teens). Was wild to me the first time time I heard it actually talked about~ (Also no, I'm in no rush to actually test it; I'll get there when it's my time 😂)
Bro one has Nothing to do with the other.You just wanted to be a little victim, Pansy.And talk about so-called near death.Experiences that probably did not happen.
@TrollyLoolly there are plenty of mundane an rather boring ways to have a near death experience, especially considering that that's not a specifically defined term. I personally claim to have had a few "near death experiences" because on several occasions a slight change in circumstances could have killed me. However you could argue a near death experience is only ones heart has stopped and is later revived. That's medically more accurate but in the definition I use I'd argue the emotional and psychological impact were at least largely similar despite walking away from those incidents with only minor injuries. I'll give one as an example. I was driving alone on a mountain road at 1 am about an hour in either direction from any turn off. As I approached a turn I fell asleep at the wheel and luckily veered left in the cliff face rather than right off the cliff that had no guard rail. When I came to my face was only a few inches from a small tree that was sticking through my driver's side window. So I "nearly died" twice, unrelated sorta but I was further lucky that a highway patrolman arrived not long after and got me to a hospital. I'm pretty sure I was stumbling along the road screaming at that point but I don't think it was more than a few minutes after the crash but things were pretty fuzzy.
I guess they thought a dog would eat the flask & jump out of the box, thereby f@@king up the experiment. Still, at least a dog got shot into space, eh!
"Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plagueis The Wise? I thought not. It’s not a story the Jedi would tell you. It’s a Sith legend. Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith, so powerful and so wise he could use the Force to influence the midichlorians to create life… He had such a knowledge of the dark side that he could even keep the ones he cared about from dying. The dark side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural. He became so powerful… the only thing he was afraid of was losing his power, which eventually, of course, he did. Unfortunately, he taught his apprentice everything he knew, then his apprentice killed him in his sleep. Ironic. He could save others from death, but not himself."
I'm with Kevin. It's a similar similar to asking what the porbabiltiy of 4 tails flips in a row is and then asking what the odds of another tails is after 3 tails flips. It's still 50%, but four in a row is .5*.5*.5*.5. They're different questions. The single filp is 50%, but multiple flips in a row is just a differnt game.
One slight problem with the reference to Schrödinger's cat. He himself dreamed up this thought experiment as a joke to highlight ridiculousness of that quantum interpretation. It's the act of measurement, which always introduces additional energy, which - at least to current theories - "collapses" the wave function and allows for the measurement of the particle's position, or momentum.
About the Schrodinger's Cat explanation: Kevin/Simon seem to be a little confused here concerning probability: The odds of a coin flip (or atomic decay) being one or the other is always 50%. Even after 10,000 flips, if all of them landed on the same side, the odds will still be 50%. This is completely different from the three door (aka Monte Hall) scenario where the subset of possibilities changes after the initial evaluation.
Reminder that in quantum mechanics, an observation does not mean a guy looked at it, it only means the system was interacted with. More important reminder that Dr Schroedinger was not proposing this to be real, but rather he was poking holes in the Copenhagen Interpretation. 01:37 The most important reminder of all, E from the band Eels (Novacaine For The Soul) is Everett's son.
@@kaseyboles30That is really the fault of the scientists, they named it the "observer effect" rather than something like "the interaction effect". Scientists are terrible communicators and as a result name things badly. This isn't a minor issue, con men and psudoscientists have used the term "observer effect" to sell bullshit, bullshit that has even led people to not get needed medical care. Scientists need to learn how to communicate with people and rename some things that the layman might misunderstand.
The Sleeping Beauty one comes down to wording. The odds are 1/3 vs 2/3, but the question isn't what ARE the odds, the question is what does she believe are the odds. If you have all the information then it is two thirds, but she doesn't. If you woke her up and said "It's Tuesday" then she has the information, but you don't. Therefore this thought experiment actually comes down to the Comprehension Test idea, "read what is says, not what you think it says"
Sleeping Beauty isn't a Paradox. It treats the Tuesday awakening as it's own separate event, which it is not. Same with the Let's Make a Deal. 3 doors become 2, but the one they removed was irrelevant to begin with then leaving the chance at 50%, 66%.
In regards to the Sleeping Beauty "paradox", I'm with Kevin. Since she is woken up on Monday regardless of the result of the coin flip, the outcomes don't diverge until Tuesday, in which she either is woken up 1/2 of the time (tails) or she is not woken up 1/2 of the time (heads). Even if you change the question to "What is the probability that today is Tuesday", there are still only two possible outcomes, it's just that the probability now becomes 1/3 for Tuesday and 2/3 for Monday. The reason for this is that the total probability, when expressed by a percentage, is 150% (she is woken up on Monday 100% of the time, and Tuesday 50% of the time). 100/150 is 2/3 for Monday, and 50/150 is 1/3 for Tuesday.
There's a SERIOUS sound level issue between the content and the ad read. And the Schroedinger's Cat experiment is a thought experiment only. Not only does the cat count as an observer, but it only works as an isolated system. That is, the box with the cat in it would have to be the only thing in the universe.
The second one seems easy to figure out. If the prediction is always right 90% of the time, then that means that you will always gain the most money (90% of the time) when your choice is correctly predicted, and only one option lets you get a million when correctly predicted. There's no point in choosing both boxes because when the prediction is right you only get a thousand dollars, while if the prediction is right for only B you get a million. I don't understand how taking both boxes could ever be rationalised though (there's only ten% chance of getting over a million)?? The problem with this scenario is the prediction, because if people generally are split on the options 50/50, then the prediction can only ever be 50/50, thereby meaning that whatever you choose, you only have a 50% chance of winning no matter which option you choose. Free will is not the issue here: simply how often making a certain choice CAN be predicted.
Whilst roughly half of the population would pick each option, you'd have to assume this isn't random; there must be some way of thinking that leads to picking both boxes. So if an AI were to ask a candidate 1000 logic questions it's not unreasonable it could predict how they would react in this scenario. In this case, it doesn't really matter what your choice is, if you're the type of person who picks both boxes you've already lost out. You'd just have to hope the AI was wrong about you. If like me you're the type of person who picks B only, you hope the AI gets it right. I only pick B only though if I know the predictor works. The mental gymnastics is hard to explain, but you have to assume the predictor has a method which takes into account any flip-flopping and therefore fooling yourself into thinking that your decision matters, means that you were always the type of person who would make that decision, and that means you should get the million.
My other comment was deleted, so I'll phrase it differently.... All you need to do to see beardless Simon is look for older videos from a channel where he used to list 10 things
Re: the Sleeping Beauty paradox-all that I got from this paradox, as a parent of an 11-year-old and a 7-year-old is that if I volunteer I get 24 hours of sleep with a 50% chance of getting another 24 hours of sleep. Where do I sign up?
You have to ask the Princess about the actual result of the coin flip. Nothing about the experiment changes the probability that a flipped fair coin will show heads half the time, and tails the other half.
About Sleeping Beauty: if she knows the rules, which she’s supposed to do, when she’s waken, she knows that she can’t know if she’s waken for the 1st or the 2nd time. So it seems to me that she can’t answer 1/3 without violating the rules. But I also have a problem with the 1/2 answer: if she knows the rules therefore she knows that she doesn’t know if she had been waken once or twice then she should combine the 1/2 and the 1/3 answer. So there would be 1/2 of 1/2 and 1/2 of 1/3 thus 5/12. Anyone agrees? Edit: I had written this at approximately 15:30 so without Simon’s last remarks.
GPT 4'd: Applying advanced data analytics to Newcomb's Paradox, a thought experiment involving free will and determinism, can provide intriguing insights, although the paradox itself is deeply philosophical and not typically resolved through data analytics. However, by leveraging predictive models, machine learning, and simulation techniques, we can approach the paradox from a novel angle, focusing on predictive accuracy and decision-making under uncertainty. Newcomb's Paradox presents a scenario with two boxes: one transparent containing a visible $1000, and the other opaque, containing either nothing or $1,000,000. A Predictor, who is nearly always correct, has predicted whether you will choose both boxes or only the opaque box. If the Predictor thinks you'll choose both, the opaque box is empty. If the Predictor thinks you'll choose only the opaque box, it contains $1,000,000. The paradox arises in deciding the rational choice, balancing the Predictor's accuracy against the apparent benefit of choosing both boxes. To use advanced data analytics in this context, we could simulate the decision-making process with several key steps: 1. **Data Collection**: Gather historical data on the Predictor's accuracy, the choices made by participants, and the outcomes. 2. **Predictive Modeling**: Develop a predictive model to analyze the Predictor's decision-making process. Machine learning algorithms can identify patterns in the Predictor's accuracy and potentially reveal biases or factors influencing its predictions. 3. **Decision Analysis**: Utilize decision analysis tools to evaluate the expected utility of choosing each box, incorporating the predictive model's insights on the Predictor's behavior. This involves calculating the expected outcomes based on different strategies, considering the Predictor's accuracy as a variable. 4. **Simulation**: Run simulations of the scenario under different conditions (e.g., varying Predictor accuracy, participant behavior patterns) to assess the impact on decision-making strategies. This can help in understanding how different levels of information and prediction accuracy affect the rational choice. 5. **Sensitivity Analysis**: Conduct sensitivity analyses to determine how sensitive the decision is to changes in key parameters, such as the Predictor's accuracy rate. This can highlight thresholds at which the optimal decision flips from one choice to another. 6. **Bayesian Analysis**: Apply Bayesian inference to update beliefs about the Predictor's accuracy based on observed outcomes. This approach can refine decision-making over time as more data becomes available. 7. **Ethical and Philosophical Considerations**: Lastly, it's crucial to integrate ethical and philosophical considerations into the analysis, acknowledging that the paradox touches on deeper issues of free will, determinism, and the nature of prediction. By approaching Newcomb's Paradox with these advanced data analytics techniques, we can gain insights into decision-making under uncertainty and the limitations of predictive models. While it may not "solve" the paradox in a philosophical sense, it offers a framework for understanding the dynamics at play and how data-driven strategies can inform complex decision-making scenarios. Executing the entire proposed approach to apply advanced data analytics to Newcomb's Paradox in a real-world context would require extensive resources, including access to detailed historical data about scenarios akin to Newcomb's Paradox (which, being a thought experiment, doesn't naturally occur in real data sets). However, I can outline a simplified, hypothetical approach using Python for parts of the process, such as creating a basic predictive model and running simulations based on assumed data. This will not solve Newcomb's Paradox but will illustrate how data analytics might be applied to explore decision-making in scenarios where a predictor's behavior is a key factor. Let's assume a simplified version where we simulate the predictor's decision-making accuracy and the participant's decision-making process to see how different strategies might perform under various conditions of predictor accuracy. ### Simplified Simulation Steps: 1. **Generate simulated data** on predictor accuracy and participant choices. 2. **Build a simple predictive model** to estimate the likelihood of the predictor being correct. 3. **Simulate decision-making** under different scenarios to evaluate strategies. This simplified model won't capture all the nuances of the advanced data analytics approach but can give a basic idea of how data can inform decision-making under uncertainty. Let's proceed with a basic simulation. Based on the simplified simulation with 10,000 iterations and assuming a predictor accuracy of 90%, the average outcomes for the different strategies are as follows: - **Choosing both boxes**: The average outcome is approximately $98,522. - **Choosing only the opaque box**: The average outcome is approximately $905,301. This simulation suggests that, under these conditions, choosing only the opaque box results in a significantly higher average outcome compared to choosing both boxes. This aligns with the idea that trusting the predictor's high accuracy and acting accordingly (i.e., demonstrating faith in the predictor's ability by choosing only the opaque box) leads to a better expected result in the long run. It's important to note that this is a highly simplified model and doesn't account for all the philosophical nuances of Newcomb's Paradox or the complexities of real-world decision-making. However, it illustrates how data analytics, through simulations and predictive modeling, can provide insights into decision-making strategies under uncertainty and the potential outcomes of different actions based on probabilistic predictions.
5 месяцев назад
The quantum immortality reminds me of how in Alan Wake is a Night Springs TV show with an episode of the same name. In it a professor presents an invention which is a box that ensures that he is always in the universe in which he survives which he demonstrates by playing Russian roulette. But during the demonstration someone trips over the power cord of the box and the professor dies.
Kevin is right about the Sleeping Beauty one, to her it is always a 50/50 chance because the math would have to be explained to us for us to think that way and we wouldn't calculate the chances but guess on 50/50.
Note to self: Do Not put on Sideprojects before bed. In less time then a hot yoga comfy chair, I've woken more dormant brain cells than sleeping beauty on a Tuesday.
Today we're exploring more Whistler. Take a Whistler. Expunge a Whistler. Squeeze his beautiful accent until you have infinite Whistlers. Transfer until your feed is Whistler. Only Whislter. Rinse repeat. And add more channels. Because Whistler.
Great video, as always. My personal thoughts on the many worlds interpretation is that it is a very lazy theory. An easy ‘out’ to explain things we can’t (currently) explain.
These are very interesting, and I had never heard the one on picking boxes. I think it's pretty easy to say best answer is to only pick box b. You need to be capable of reasoning through it and be willing to take the gamble if something has analyzed your mind. The act itself of trying to cheat the system makes it quite likely you'll get screwed. Especially when box b has 1000x more reward, attempting to take both is a dumb risk. That's really a good one, though.
Real quick. Schrodinger was not a fan of quantum mechanics, and he made that theoretical situation (and made it overly-complicated) in order to showcase how ridiculous he thought it was. It was set up more to mock quantum mechanics than to prove anything.
And where are we getting the energy used and what energy is compatible to be used to create each and every alternative Universe for every decision that every conscious creature creates?
If I was in such a deep sleep that I could sleep until Tuesday, and someone woke me up asking about a bloody coin flip, what is the probability they'd find that coin well far up their asses?
The many worlds interpretation has another interesting effect. The chance of humanity discovering what causes aging and death and neutralizing it in our lifetime is small but not zero. Therefore our conscience will always live on in those universes where humanity does defeat death before our own death. Therefore we are already immortal and don't even have to perform the experiment.
The sleeping beauty problem illustrates the difference between bayesian and frequentist concepts of probability. For a bayesian it is a measurement of information, so the answer is 1/2. For a frequentist it is a measure of the relative rate of events, so the answer is 1/3. This also illustrates a deep schisma in the philosophy of science, that has not yet been solved: Given the same data set, bayesian and frequentist analysis can arrive at different conclusions. The question then is which answer is valid? One of them? Both of them? None of them?
If I choose both boxes I’m probably going to get $1000. But if I choose only b then I’m probably going to get $1,000,000. I don’t see how this is a hard choice. It’s an even easier choice when you factor in that winning a million would be life altering and winning a thousand would be forgotten by next month.
I remember the disaster the Sleeping Beauty Paradox was in the Veritasium video on it... He switched the wording of the question around when explaining both interpretations, so the video supposedly explaining where the dichotomy stemmed from got the logical flow wrong. It took me four viewings of that video to understand the concept properly, because it was so jumbled up that it ruined all chances of understanding it properly.
Note to self - don’t watch vids like this immediately prior to going to bed. You end up with Sleeping Beauty preventing there being the possibility of sheep.
The solution to Newcomb's paradox is an equation: Choose option A (only the big box) if Pa + Pb ≥ 1 + 1/K, otherwise choose option B (both boxes) where K is the ratio between the big payout and the small payout (in this example 1000000 / 1000 = 1000), Pa is the probability of the predictor correctly guessing your choice if your choice is option A, Pb is the probability of the predictor correctly guessing your choice if your choice is option B. Pa and Pb do not necessarily have to be the same but in this example, they are both 90%.
Schrodinger and his cat. Time line splits. Cat is both dead and alive at the same time. So say in that paradox, there was also a camera in the box. The camera was being monitored the enter time by someone and they seen the cat being put in the box. For this purpose we will say it is alive. Then the person who put the cat in the box goes in the other room to get Schrodinger, who is unaware of the condition the cat, to look in the box. As he steps up to the box and sees it he does not know if the cat is dead or alive, and supposedly the cat is both dead and alive at the same time. The camera guy sees one alive cat. Are Schrodinger and the camera guy in a different timeline? When Schrodinger opens the box will create three timelines? One with the camera guy seeing the cat alive and so does Schrodinger? Two with the camera guy seeing the cat alive and Schrodinger sees the cat dead and goes to mental ward? Three where Schrodinger sees a dead cat and the camera guy sees an alive cat magically die? Will he Mandela affect his memory to not remember the cat being alive? Will he be in mental ward? The video posed the question about the if the cat will remember being dead. I think they are bigger paradoxes here than that. Will there be two physical cats in the box when it’s opened, one dead one alive? Fourth timeline maybe where everyone goes mad even the guy who put the cat in the box? Many worlds and multi universe? If anything can happen it will and already has? Life’s conundrums. Maybe we don’t need to know. Maybe don’t put the cat in the box to begin with. They don’t like it. Maybe we focus our minds on more useful paradoxes. Like, if I am to look at the seat to put it up, why can’t she look at the seat to put it down. Life’s conundrums.
Schrödinger's cat is flawed because the cat is a conscious obsever who will cause the superpositioning to collapse. A better experiment would be with an inanimate observer (a camera), so if the atom decays it will trigger a light to turn on for ten seconds. So when you watch the footage back there was either 24 hours of total darkness, or 24 hours of darkness broken by 10 seconds of light, the camera not being conscious will not break down the superpositioning and will have to record BOTH scenarios - if the theory is true.
The quantum suicide thing sometimes leads me to an interesting conclusion: That *every single person* who ever lives *will be* in fact immortal in at least *one* universe among the infinitude, thereby making us all functionally immortal. The problem, though, lies in a moral dilemma: actively testing the hypothesis by attempting suicide would result in INFINITY MINUS ONE universes in which you've rendered your family and friends distraught because of your death, even though they might be fine in the universe where your consciousness ends up. So, by attempting the experiment, the person would be causing infinite misery to an infinite number of people. Of course, there are plenty of people who don't give a fuck about any misery they might cause. In the universe in which this asshole lives, he does indeed prove an astounding fact about the multiverse, and will become the most famous person in history. But this renders the experiment sort of moot, because EVERY ONE OF US will eventually, somehow, be this person in a single universe, from a first-person perspective. Therefore, attempting suicide *when expecting to survive* is immeasurably cruel, since just ... *waiting* ... will have the same result. Do I believe this to be true? No. But I do find it thought-provoking that I find myself to currently be a middle-aged person in perfect health, in a rich Western country with universal (heh) healthcare, at a time in history when there are serious people actively investigating whether a "cure for aging" might actually be attainable within decades, or even earlier if you think that the AI Singularity is just around the corner. (I do *not*, but I'd still be pretty delighted to be proved wrong.)
5:13 Neil DeGrasse Tyson said that if 1000 people flip a coin and only people with tails are eliminated 1 person will will have flipped heads 10 times in a row (of course rounding up and down to make a number divisible by 2 under the assumption that half of the 10000 and remaining people flip tails and are eliminated) 10:30 FOMO Effect (Fear of missing out)
I would take box B because I can get over losing 1000 dollars but not over losing 1M, nothing to do with statistics. It’s the same reason why people spend money at the casino or on lottery. Small risk big reward
Something like that quantum immortality could happen without any quantum effects. It is similar to the question of I’d you would step into a teleport machine. If you die here, you won’t experience being dead here, but if the universe or set of universes is in any way infinite then somewhere something very like you will continue. Unless you postulate something supernatural like a soul then this is equivalent to you continuing.
This reminds me, when i was learning about the history of natives and migration through language, they mentioned that some language changes seemed to originate in the south America as it's own thing which they were confused about. While I don't recall the exact timelines and what not, it could be because of humans (Y) living in south america. They migrated to the south and lesrned new languages and such and brought some of it back up north and that might be why
Fair point Kevin. I'd argue that she DOES in fact have new information, because she was told what the conditions were before the first coin flip. Therefore, the compilation of that information with the added information that she woke up would lead her to make the 1/3 guess because there is that much probability that this was the second time she'd woken up.
The options are "Wake up one" or "wake up twice with no knowledge that it happened twice". Death was not an option, so waking up doesn't give her new information
The Sleeping Beauty problem isn't ambiguous at all. The "thirders" are answering a question that wasn't asked. "What is your credence now, for the proposition that the coin has landed heads?" should only have one answer for a fair coin. It's always 50%. The thirders are conflating that question with the probability that it's a particular day, which is *not* part of the question.
Schrödinger's cat is unsolved - there is no way to test it, and quantum suicide does not help ... Newcomb's paradox - If you think something that you have been told can reliably or fairly reliably predict the future - can predict the future - you pick Box B If you think it can't predict the future, then you pick both boxes ... So the paradox has nothing to do with the boxes, or the predictor, but your beliefs ... so philosophy not mathematics Sleeping beauty - again the question is vague and so there are multiple provably correct answers, based on how the question is interpreted Conclusion : Do not trust philosophy ....
Even you accept the premise of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment, a cat that survives would not have any memory of being dead. This does not require any physics unique to Schrodinger's cat, just basic quantum principles. Particles in a superposition of multiple, mutually exclusive states, will never be observed to occupy both of those states simultaneously. Superimposed states are invoked to explain the statistical trend in observations, not any individual observation. If you treat an entire animal as a quantum system, then the entire system is in a superposition of possible states. Wave function collapse doesn't mean each part of the system independently settles into one of its possible discrete states. The various parts must settle into mutually consistent states. This is entanglement in action. Forget the cat. Things like the conservation of energy and momentum wouldn't work if entanglement failed for things as simple as elementary particles. Not to mention cause and effect would be seriously challenged if a cause could retroactively cease to exist while its effect continued.
10:53 I chose box B. Why would they offer you $1000 or 1.001M? I’m willing to lose on $1K to possibly get $1M but I don’t even consider the possibility of getting both instead.
Simon, Im guessing you didnt see the recent research where they determined that flipping a coin is *NOT* 50/50 chance to land either side up. It's just a biiiit more likely to land up with the same side that it started with. They did like 300,000 flips, using different people and different kinds of coins... They called it the 'same side bias' if im not mistaken.
The logic behind the thirder position in the sleeping beauty paradox is more obvious if you go with fewer days, not more. Instead of asking the subject once if heads and twice if tails, ask once if tails and never if heads. At that point the fact the subject is being asked at all proves to the subject the outcome was tails. Kevin's disagreement is really about the interpretation of probability itself, and it's fair. But the setup of the experiment, by tying the number of queries to the outcome of the flip, is no longer measuring the coin flips equally. Consider pulling a random person off the street, on a day that sleeping beauty is to be woken, and asking them what the chance is. That person could conclude that there is one possible universe where the coin was heads and he got asked this question, but two possible universes where the coin was tails and he got asked the same question. In other words the scientists have made the coin unfair by counting it twice when it flips tails. So Kevin is right that "the coin has a 50% chance of flipping heads or tails", but whoever is queried is no longer equally likely to exist in a universe with either outcome.
