@@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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
Quantum mechanics never breaks down. It always works the same. The reason that things appear to work differently in the macroscopic world is because macroscopic humans are experiencing the collective behavior of quadrillions upon quadrillions of particles. Their probablistic nature is not visible at this scale, and all you see is their statistical behavior. For example, a ball can quantum tunnel through a wall just like a particle can. However, for that to happen, all of the ball's quantum constituents have to all simultaneously quantum tunnel through the wall AND through random chance also appear in the exact positions required to manifest as a ball. As even a single quantum tunneling event is rare, the chances for every single particle that a ball is made of to tunnel simultaneously is so unlikely that you would have to throw googols of balls for googols of trillions of billions of the age of the universe for it to actually happen. Its the same reason you will never win the lottery jackpot over and over 500 billion times in a row every time you play. Though technically possible, the likelihood is just too low. So if you throw a ball at a wall, one or even some of its particles may just tunnel through it. But the other quadrillions of particles its made of won't, so as far as anyone can see, the ball didn't go thru the wall. So quantum physics doesn't break down at the macro level, it behaves the same, its just that behavior looks different from our scale as at human scales it becomes a matter of statistics of the behavior of MANY particles
And the question of the coin flip. It was only flipped once, right? If you're only asking the probability of it landing on heads for 1 flip, it should be 50/50, no matter what. Of course, someone a lot smarter than me might "well actually" me, but I won't read it. I hate thought experiments.
The obvious answer to Newcomb's paradox is to only take box A. This neatly sidesteps the entire paradox and proves that free will is of more value than a million dollars.
But it's also illogical, making decisions that you otherwise wouldn't in an effort to prove free will doesn't prove free will. I don't claim to be am expert or even particularly knowledgeable about well anything but from my layman's understanding if everything we do is preordained then even efforts to prove free will are as well thus disproving the idea of free will. However I think it is right to assume that people have free will because on thr possibility that it's real it would lead to the need for individuals to be held accountable for their own actions, something that isn't nessesarily the case if everything was fated, it's like saying I didn't have control over my actions as a way to reduce or remove liability, something that already exists in our legal system (US) as an exception. The concern I have would be if that was the base state and must be proved otherwise rather than the inverse.
@@omgandwtf1 Nah, the point I was making is that there is no reason to restrict yourself to the given rules. Or pander to the ego of some psychic. Just take the box you know has a thousand dollars, and call it a day. The thing is, Free will is limited by our understanding of the choices we can make. When someone says you can only make certain choices, then we turn around and make a different choice, that is a demonstration of free will. If we restrict ourselves to the choices presented, we are binding ourselves to the predetermined outcome that others have decided for us. Our free will is bound to the choices we realize we have, not the choices others think we have, or the choices we are told we have.
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
Schrödinger's Sleeping Beauty is dressed like Cinderella, but only if a given individual chooses Box B. If said individual looks inside the Box, not only will Sleeping Beauty not be dressed like Cinderella, but rather like the Little Mermaid. Perhaps dead, or perhaps flipping a Fair coin.
The cat can't remember being dead because it wasn't. The whole Schodingers cat thing is nothing but an overplayed analogy for quantum behavior. The cat in the box is NOT both dead and alive, it is in fact one of those and not the other. If the 'observer' doesn't know which, it doesn't mean that it is both. Everyone else in the room went and looked and they know what state the cat is in, while the 'observer' is still over in the corner muttering about superposition.
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.
As per the two boxes..... By getting both boxes your sure to get at least $1000 so if the other box has cash or not you at least leave with more than you started with.....
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.
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).
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.
Agreed. The argument for taking both boxes either ignores the 90% chance of being right or applies some influence you have over the guess that is not stated. B FTW
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?
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
Recently learned from one of Simon’s posts that maths has proven that no “ fair” coin flip is random. How does that impact the many maths arguments or proofs that depend on the complete randomness of a fair coin tossed?
My inclination was to just take box A to guarantee $1000 because it's late, and im stoned already. I have no idea what that means or what i'd actually get and i moved onto to the next paradox super confused lol. Box A alone is definitely the "I'm stoned and i'm tired" position.
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.
Heisenberg and Schrodinger are on a joy ride. A cop stops them, and asks Heisenberg if he knows how fast he was going. Heisenberg says, "No officer, but I can tell you exactly where we are." Disliking his answer, the cop tells him to pop the trunk open. He then circles over to the passenger side of the car and says to Schrodinger, "Do you know you have a dead cat back there?" Schrodinger sighs in frustration and says, "Well, I DO now!"
I would still take both boxes no matter what. Either way whether it's $1k or $1mill I still gain more money than I currently have. I would rather have $1k than nothing at all by risking it all on 1 box.
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.
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!
the branching multiverse/schroedingers cat is very human interaction/ego focussed, the cat is what it is regardless and the multiverse would theoretically branch out every time the smallest thing had 2 possible states, atoms etc, people always think of it as I am what I am here and could be in this other scenario in an alternate dimension etc 😄
11:39 I'm still trying to figure out how there's a paradox when you have a known payout...the expected values, where there's a highest paying scenario...
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
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.
Quantum immortality is the equivalent of beating Mario after dying an infinite number of times. Mario doesn't remember all the times you died, they only remember the life that won the game.
I really like your videos. They make me think and are educational. I am always learning something. The last one was too much thinking for when you flip a coin it is 50 chance to get heads or tails.
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.
It has seemed to me for some time that Newcombe's Paradox is something that the Magician Derren Brown could base one of his acts on.
10 місяців тому
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.
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.
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.
Schrodinger's cat....what happens when someone interested in science gets high and starts considering "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
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.
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.
@@cbnewham_ai 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.
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.
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.
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 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 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%.
Huh, the quantum suicide theory EXACTLY matches a thought experiment I used to play around with. Weird hearing it was already a thing. :) lol I always visualized it as a river that branches off, and you're riding down the river. In most situations the river splits, but in one where the result is your death, the river comes to a end. In which case your only option is to continue down the only path available, the water will carry you that way regardless.
When it comes to Newcomb's Paradox, taking both boxes is pretty much the smarter option simply from the fact that the price is guarantied. If you then get some extra at the side it is just a nice bonus. Also, with the sleeping beauty paradox, what about the coin landing on its edge?
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.
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"
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.
The choices are boxes A & B or just box B. There is no option to choose only box A. However, the $1 million will only be in box B if the “reliable predictor” predicts that you will choose only box B.
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
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?
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.
"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."
On the second experiment, the prediction only makes any sense in one of two possibilities: The predictor somehow already knows what you will pick and only knows the content of the mystery box with 90% probability, or vice versa. For example, if they knew you'd pick both boxes, then what that's saying is that the predictor only knows there's a 10% chance there will be 1 million in the mystery box before it is presented to the chooser. If they knew you'd only pick the mystery box, then instead there was a 90% chance. Vice versa, if the predictor knows exactly what's in the box, then they only know what you will choose with 90% certainty. This means that the outcome for the choice you're less likely to take is a fantasy. This doesn't change the fact they're still 90% accurate. This means that the prediction has no effect on reality and you should pick both boxes as nothing you do will change the contents of the mystery box once it's in your presence, the predictor can be ignored even though the statement about their 90% accuracy is still correct. Though since this is still considered a problem without a clear solution somehow then there's probably something I missed.
If you're choice doesn't affect what's in the box, there is no debat that you better take everything. But if the problem does actually depends on your decision, in which case it becomes a probability problem. And a choice between a guaranteed 1000 with a low chance of getting a million or a high chance of getting a million.
@EspyMelly As he explained there are two different interpretations of the challenge and you are arguing for the answer for the interpretation you subconsciously picked. This interpretation is what they called the 'realist' version. You assume that you have free will and a realiable prediction isn't actually possible and therefore it is possible to outsmart the predictor. The other interpretation takes the description of the thought experiment at face value (that actual reliable predictions are possible, this is a thought experiment after all, not reality) and accepts that it's not possible to outsmart the reliable predictor in the experiment.
The problem with Schrodingers cat / Copenhagen interpretation is that it's false. As Schrodinger correctly suggests, it cannot possibly be both. It must either be dead or alive, not knowing the situation does not allow for both options to be possible, it's either one or the other.
I'm not sure what the issue is but there has been a few videos, "including this one", where there is a shift in audio volume between your sponsor pitch and the rest of the video. I figured I would mention it to make you aware.
Secure your privacy with Surfshark! Enter coupon code SIDEPROJECTS for an extra 3 months free at surfshark.deals/SIDEPROJECTS
It's so dumb how all you UA-camrs think you're entitled to money just because you open your mouth on camera.
@@TheGreyLineMattersobvious troll is obvious.
@@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.
Your adds volume ballancing was off. It was very quiet
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.
I was going to say the same thing. Thanks for being "that guy". Because if it wasn't you it would've been me🤣
Yes it is.. I didn’t suffer through quantum mechanics in undergrad for people to continue to ignore this fact
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.
@@QBCPerditionthe cat is also an observer
@QBCPerdition the nature of the observer is not the point, the point is that an observer seems to affect the outcome.
Simon learning something he finds interesting is the kind of joy we all need.
Why😮
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.
Schrodinger never had a cat.If he did he would know that tapping its food bowl would instantly show if it was alive.
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.
According to Schrodingers daughter, "I guess my father didn't like cats all that much"
I have a cat, and yes that's true. Or throwing it a spring.
What if schrodinger dropped the box upside down?
@@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.
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.
Here's another one: "self-restoring sameness"
9:20 Equally flawless, huh? Nobody predicted that I would only take Box A!
AHAHAHA! >:D
I took a as well.
Me too.
Me too - on the premise that a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.
The cat is both alive, dead, and pissed.
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.
He did address that in the video.
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.
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.
Believe it or not "it's an absurd idea" is exactly what Schrodinger was saying about QM with his famous thought experiment.
@@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.
@@statendrei5 The coin is not in a superposition, it's just spinning.
Quantum mechanics never breaks down. It always works the same. The reason that things appear to work differently in the macroscopic world is because macroscopic humans are experiencing the collective behavior of quadrillions upon quadrillions of particles. Their probablistic nature is not visible at this scale, and all you see is their statistical behavior. For example, a ball can quantum tunnel through a wall just like a particle can. However, for that to happen, all of the ball's quantum constituents have to all simultaneously quantum tunnel through the wall AND through random chance also appear in the exact positions required to manifest as a ball. As even a single quantum tunneling event is rare, the chances for every single particle that a ball is made of to tunnel simultaneously is so unlikely that you would have to throw googols of balls for googols of trillions of billions of the age of the universe for it to actually happen. Its the same reason you will never win the lottery jackpot over and over 500 billion times in a row every time you play. Though technically possible, the likelihood is just too low. So if you throw a ball at a wall, one or even some of its particles may just tunnel through it. But the other quadrillions of particles its made of won't, so as far as anyone can see, the ball didn't go thru the wall. So quantum physics doesn't break down at the macro level, it behaves the same, its just that behavior looks different from our scale as at human scales it becomes a matter of statistics of the behavior of MANY particles
@@denissavgir2881
This is an excellent explanation of the invisibility of quantum phenomena at macro scales.
A boat's a boat, but the mystery box could be anything! It could even be a boat! You know how much we've wanted one of those!
And the question of the coin flip. It was only flipped once, right? If you're only asking the probability of it landing on heads for 1 flip, it should be 50/50, no matter what. Of course, someone a lot smarter than me might "well actually" me, but I won't read it. I hate thought experiments.
"We'll take the box." XD
Damn, talk about a throwback. Well done friend.
On the Sleeping Beauty question, she would probably ask who changed her into a Cinderella costume while she was asleep.
😂
The obvious answer to Newcomb's paradox is to only take box A. This neatly sidesteps the entire paradox and proves that free will is of more value than a million dollars.
But it's also illogical, making decisions that you otherwise wouldn't in an effort to prove free will doesn't prove free will. I don't claim to be am expert or even particularly knowledgeable about well anything but from my layman's understanding if everything we do is preordained then even efforts to prove free will are as well thus disproving the idea of free will. However I think it is right to assume that people have free will because on thr possibility that it's real it would lead to the need for individuals to be held accountable for their own actions, something that isn't nessesarily the case if everything was fated, it's like saying I didn't have control over my actions as a way to reduce or remove liability, something that already exists in our legal system (US) as an exception. The concern I have would be if that was the base state and must be proved otherwise rather than the inverse.
@@omgandwtf1 Nah, the point I was making is that there is no reason to restrict yourself to the given rules. Or pander to the ego of some psychic. Just take the box you know has a thousand dollars, and call it a day.
The thing is, Free will is limited by our understanding of the choices we can make. When someone says you can only make certain choices, then we turn around and make a different choice, that is a demonstration of free will. If we restrict ourselves to the choices presented, we are binding ourselves to the predetermined outcome that others have decided for us.
Our free will is bound to the choices we realize we have, not the choices others think we have, or the choices we are told we have.
9:08 it’s my absolute favorite when Real Simon leaks onto his non-comment channels 😂😂
0:35 - Chapter 1 - The quantum suicide
3:30 - Mid roll ads
4:35 - Back to the video
6:05 - Chapter 2 - Newcomb's paradox
11:05 - Chapter 3 - Sleeping beauty problem
PS: 1:40 - Simon's cloning facility DECODED !!!
you don't have YT ad block? You do you man.
Jesus christ just watch the damn video, who the fuck needs time stamps on such a short video.
ad blocker don’t work on sponsored adds in the middle of a video bruh🤦♂️😭
@@Jeudaos bruh🤦♂️
Quoting that great thinker of the ages......Gumby. 'my brain hurts!' 😂
"It will have to come out!"
The most Brain Blaze-esque non-cold read episode ever.
He has a ton of channels lol
I know. That’s why I referenced one.
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
This episode made me feel like I'm on drugs.
You should try listening to it actually on drugs. It's nuts.
@@STORMDAME It's not bad.
These drugs make me feel like I'm on this episode
I think something’s wrong with these drugs-
Sorry and or you're welcome
Schrödinger's Sleeping Beauty is dressed like Cinderella, but only if a given individual chooses Box B. If said individual looks inside the Box, not only will Sleeping Beauty not be dressed like Cinderella, but rather like the Little Mermaid. Perhaps dead, or perhaps flipping a Fair coin.
I picked Box A. However, I never looked inside, so Sleeping Beauty was both Jasmine and Mulan. Paradoxes are weird.
The cat can't remember being dead because it wasn't. The whole Schodingers cat thing is nothing but an overplayed analogy for quantum behavior. The cat in the box is NOT both dead and alive, it is in fact one of those and not the other. If the 'observer' doesn't know which, it doesn't mean that it is both. Everyone else in the room went and looked and they know what state the cat is in, while the 'observer' is still over in the corner muttering about superposition.
Facts.
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.
As per the two boxes.....
By getting both boxes your sure to get at least $1000 so if the other box has cash or not you at least leave with more than you started with.....
For number 2, I'm more impressed that you were able to determine that I don't believe in free will using that question than anything else. :)
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.
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).
Technically correct, the best kind of correct.
More of these please, love it mate 🙏🏻
Last I heard, a fair coin flip isn't exactly 50/50, more like 51/49. So both solutions of the Sleeping Beauty problem don't seem correct either way.
I love ALL sideprojects videos!
I love it.
Hand flips coin. Results undetermined.
Now do the analysis of the probability that Simon’s jacket has holes worn through the elbows. 😂
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.
Agreed. The argument for taking both boxes either ignores the 90% chance of being right or applies some influence you have over the guess that is not stated. B FTW
What if the A-B box challenge tells us more about ourselves instead of what the “best” choice of action? 😂
The real paradox is the friends we made along the way
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?
And what about every decision that doesn't have a binary answer?
Most appealing to me is Nozick's Experience Machine. Plato's lost lecture "On The Good," is also a subject ripe for exploration.
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
She wasn't asked how many times she'd been woken up. She was asked what the odds are that the coin was tails. That's always 50%.
Recently learned from one of Simon’s posts that maths has proven that no “ fair” coin flip is random. How does that impact the many maths arguments or proofs that depend on the complete randomness of a fair coin tossed?
My inclination was to just take box A to guarantee $1000 because it's late, and im stoned already. I have no idea what that means or what i'd actually get and i moved onto to the next paradox super confused lol.
Box A alone is definitely the "I'm stoned and i'm tired" position.
I mean if I have the chance of not getting anything in box b then box a would be the choice
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.
Don't try to change my mind. I'm now primed to win a million bucks if I'm ever faced with this decision.
Schrodinger's cat is dead and has been for awhile, no cat in history has ever lived to be 89 years old
I chose box A. Guaranteed 1000 :~) "well now it's biguous, what you gunna do about it?" ;~)
I didn't make sense of any of these. Like I couldn't get my head around the question to even consider giving an answer
Heisenberg and Schrodinger are on a joy ride. A cop stops them, and asks Heisenberg if he knows how fast he was going. Heisenberg says, "No officer, but I can tell you exactly where we are."
Disliking his answer, the cop tells him to pop the trunk open. He then circles over to the passenger side of the car and says to Schrodinger, "Do you know you have a dead cat back there?" Schrodinger sighs in frustration and says, "Well, I DO now!"
9:00 is absolutely mind boggling!
I can see Simon forgetting what he's saying as he's saying it 😂
I would still take both boxes no matter what. Either way whether it's $1k or $1mill I still gain more money than I currently have. I would rather have $1k than nothing at all by risking it all on 1 box.
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.
I'm really surprised that it wasn't a Schrodinger's dog experiment.
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!
I love it when you guys make shows about paradoxes! Keep em coming, Simon!😍😍🥹
I think if i listened to the intro 50 times i'd still be confused what the episode is about
the branching multiverse/schroedingers cat is very human interaction/ego focussed, the cat is what it is regardless and the multiverse would theoretically branch out every time the smallest thing had 2 possible states, atoms etc, people always think of it as I am what I am here and could be in this other scenario in an alternate dimension etc 😄
11:39 I'm still trying to figure out how there's a paradox when you have a known payout...the expected values, where there's a highest paying scenario...
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
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.
In shrodingers cat, the cat IS NOT both alive and dead.
It can just be ASSUMED either alive or dead until it is observed.
under the conpenhagen interpretation the cat IS both alive and dead that is the entire point of it (i study physics)
Bone!!!!! Seriously loved this video
Quantum immortality is the equivalent of beating Mario after dying an infinite number of times. Mario doesn't remember all the times you died, they only remember the life that won the game.
Its like, i might have already died hundreds of times but i only remember the one im alive in
Woah
Damn dude you can't leave us on a cliff hanger like that!
3:36 okay what I am so freaking confused right now please tell me I'm not the only one LOL
I really like your videos. They make me think and are educational. I am always learning something. The last one was too much thinking for when you flip a coin it is 50 chance to get heads or tails.
3:12 this seems like something that someone would legitimately agree to do live for everyone
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.
Thank you. So many misunderstand 'observed' like that and create truly astoundingly crazy woo-woo physics/consciousness fairytales.
@@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.
Shake the box. The cat will meow if it’s alive 😂
It has seemed to me for some time that Newcombe's Paradox is something that the Magician Derren Brown could base one of his acts on.
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.
And now my brain hurts. Thank you Simon 🙄
Huh every bit of this went over my head. Why I continued to watch it is beyond me 😅 but I did & will continue to do so. Maybe 1 day it will click 🤔
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.
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.
Schrodinger's cat....what happens when someone interested in science gets high and starts considering "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
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.
People who come up with thought experiments have wayyyy too much time on their hands!!!
Really shouldn’t have hit the bong so many times before trying to follow this 😅😅😅
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.
Thank you professor 🙏🏿
@@cbnewham_ai 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.
@@a24396its utter nonsense. If you look up the double slit experiment you'll never find a practical example. Lol.
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.
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.
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 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 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%.
Huh, the quantum suicide theory EXACTLY matches a thought experiment I used to play around with. Weird hearing it was already a thing. :) lol
I always visualized it as a river that branches off, and you're riding down the river. In most situations the river splits, but in one where the result is your death, the river comes to a end. In which case your only option is to continue down the only path available, the water will carry you that way regardless.
16:32 Well, sh-t, then, Brain Boy; Hook me up with some brain serum!!
😀
When it comes to Newcomb's Paradox, taking both boxes is pretty much the smarter option simply from the fact that the price is guarantied. If you then get some extra at the side it is just a nice bonus.
Also, with the sleeping beauty paradox, what about the coin landing on its edge?
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.
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"
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.
9:00. What challenge is there choosing both boxes ? I thought it could be only one of the other.
The choices are boxes A & B or just box B. There is no option to choose only box A. However, the $1 million will only be in box B if the “reliable predictor” predicts that you will choose only box B.
Newcom's paradox:
If it's guaranteed that the outcome has been predicted then b is the choice bc you already have nothing, which covers the 10% error
The most likely answer to the cat is that it is either dead or alive as there is no randomness. “Random” simply means variables we do not know.
4. Trying to imagine what normal life was like after looking up Simon Whistler without beard on Google images
😂
I don't want to live in a world where I know that information...
The beard is only around 5 years old, calm down.
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
HA! Someone get me
A box and hold my beer!
Veritasium did a whole video on the sleeping beauty paradox. It's quite interesting.
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?
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.
Oh my god you just solved the sleeping beauty paradox!
I think the first way every time I have a seizure, this is just an outcome where I didn't die when I had one.
On the sleeping beauty your doing an expected value solutions vs a probability solution both are correct
"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 really enjoyed the sleeping beauty one
On the second experiment, the prediction only makes any sense in one of two possibilities: The predictor somehow already knows what you will pick and only knows the content of the mystery box with 90% probability, or vice versa. For example, if they knew you'd pick both boxes, then what that's saying is that the predictor only knows there's a 10% chance there will be 1 million in the mystery box before it is presented to the chooser. If they knew you'd only pick the mystery box, then instead there was a 90% chance. Vice versa, if the predictor knows exactly what's in the box, then they only know what you will choose with 90% certainty. This means that the outcome for the choice you're less likely to take is a fantasy. This doesn't change the fact they're still 90% accurate.
This means that the prediction has no effect on reality and you should pick both boxes as nothing you do will change the contents of the mystery box once it's in your presence, the predictor can be ignored even though the statement about their 90% accuracy is still correct.
Though since this is still considered a problem without a clear solution somehow then there's probably something I missed.
If you're choice doesn't affect what's in the box, there is no debat that you better take everything.
But if the problem does actually depends on your decision, in which case it becomes a probability problem. And a choice between a guaranteed 1000 with a low chance of getting a million or a high chance of getting a million.
@@tonymouannesif that chance is >0.1% I'm going with the million. Thems the odds.
@EspyMelly As he explained there are two different interpretations of the challenge and you are arguing for the answer for the interpretation you subconsciously picked. This interpretation is what they called the 'realist' version. You assume that you have free will and a realiable prediction isn't actually possible and therefore it is possible to outsmart the predictor.
The other interpretation takes the description of the thought experiment at face value (that actual reliable predictions are possible, this is a thought experiment after all, not reality) and accepts that it's not possible to outsmart the reliable predictor in the experiment.
The problem with Schrodingers cat / Copenhagen interpretation is that it's false. As Schrodinger correctly suggests, it cannot possibly be both. It must either be dead or alive, not knowing the situation does not allow for both options to be possible, it's either one or the other.
I'm not sure what the issue is but there has been a few videos, "including this one", where there is a shift in audio volume between your sponsor pitch and the rest of the video. I figured I would mention it to make you aware.