/tg/Station 13

Posted: **Mon May 14, 2018 5:31 am**

I'm on a Philosophy kick lately so I will be dumping my philosophical trash here since it helps me to see how my thinking stands against other people's. I will state a problem or paradox, give an outline of it in practice and put my thinking in the spoiler warning.

Prisoner's Dilemma
The paradox of rationality
Alice and Bob are arrested by a police detective, they were caught in the act of committing a lesser crime after committing a more major crime, but the police cannot prove either one's guilt regarding the major crime. Alice and Bob are then placed into separate prison cells with no means of communicating with each other.
The lead detective separately tells both Alice and Bob that if they stay silent, they'll both go to prison for 3 years. If one of them decides to betray the other, they walk out free and their partner goes to jail for 9 years. He also informs that he has told them both and that if they both choose to turn on the other, they'll both be getting 6 years.

Both prisoners want to minimise the time they spend in prison, should the prisoners ally with one another? Or betray each other?

Spoiler:

Schrödinger's Cat
The problem of measuring the Quantum
Schrödinger's Cat is a well-known thought experiment whereupon Schrödinger wanted to demonstrate the absurdity of applying the quantum to the macro scale in a way that was accessible to the average person.
In the experiment, a cat is placed within a container that is sealed off from outside observation by all conceivable mechanisms. Within the container is the titular cat, a small sample of radioactive material, a geiger counter and a jar of poison gas. The container will remain sealed and undisturbed for one hour, the radioactive material has a 50-50 chance of decaying enough to trigger the geiger counter. If the geiger counter is triggered, the poison will be released and kill the cat. The cat is excluded as an observer in its own quantum state.

In what state is the cat prior to opening?

Spoiler:

The Chinese Room Argument
Is understanding the same as knowing?
Alice is a monolingual English speaker locked into a room, it is thoroughly sealed with no means of exit obviously apparent. Inside the room is a slot to the outside world, a pile of plates with a bunch of Chinese letters written on it and a book written in English with rules regarding to the usage of these plates. At regular intervals, a message is sent through the slot which Alice picks up and reads. Whenever a message is sent in through the slot, it is always written in Chinese which Alice cannot understand. She consults the book and notices that the book tells her which plates to put through the slot whenever she receives a particular message, even if she cannot understand the words - she recognises the symbols and their arrangement.

Despite not knowing or being able to speak Chinese, can it be said that Alice understands the Chinese language?

Spoiler:

Posted: **Mon May 14, 2018 7:30 am**

http://ncase.me/trust//

This game explains game theory better than anything else, is super interesting and kind of puts the prisoner's dilemma to bed in a way that doesn't depress me.

I really recommend it. I won't spoil the outcomes but it basically applies the prisoner's dilemma to larger groups to see which strategies are most successful.

Posted: **Mon May 14, 2018 8:22 am**

Philosophical problem: SS13 is supposed to be a paranoia laden role playing game.
Logical paradox: TG station shuns role playing and keeps adding dumb memes instead.

Posted: **Tue May 15, 2018 10:43 am**

Lumbermancer wrote:Philosophical problem: SS13 is supposed to be a paranoia laden role playing game.
Logical paradox: TG station shuns role playing and keeps adding dumb memes instead.

is this bait

Posted: **Tue May 15, 2018 1:00 pm**

Maybe?

Posted: **Tue May 15, 2018 2:32 pm**

Stickymayhem wrote:http://ncase.me/trust//

This game explains game theory better than anything else, is super interesting and kind of puts the prisoner's dilemma to bed in a way that doesn't depress me.

I really recommend it. I won't spoil the outcomes but it basically applies the prisoner's dilemma to larger groups to see which strategies are most successful.

thanks for showing me this it was pretty cool

Posted: **Tue May 15, 2018 3:04 pm**

Prisoner's Dilemma
There is nothing wrong or paradoxical about the conclusion to betray each other. The prisoners are isolated from each other, and they cannot communicate. They are also playing this game only one time. To understand the conclusion of betrayal, you must think of another game, similar to the prisoner's dilemma. In fact it's exactly the same, only you play it multiple times with the same person. Playing the Prisoner's Dilemma over many times has lead to the following strategy: tit for tat.

Chris Bateman, concisely summing up Axelrod’s conclusions from his experiments with the Prisoner’s Dilemma, notes that the most successful strategy requires that a player “be nice (never the first to defect), [be] retaliating (willing to defect), [be] forgiving (willing to attempt to regain trust by breaking a defection cycle), and [be] non-envious (not specifically attempt to outscore individual opponents).”

So if the two players have played the prisoner's dilemma before, and they've reached an equilibrium state where they both cooperate (aka trust), then they cooperate in prison too after the bank robbery (or whatever crime). If the two literally just met and now their lives are on the line with significant amounts of jail time, then yeah you betray.

I just spoiled Sticky's game but the link still worth checking out.

Schrödinger's Cat
There is an interpretation, known Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) which is quite similar to the most popular Copenhagen interpretation, but with the difference of completely abandoning the classical notion that some absolute state exists, even on the macro scale. This neatly gets rid of any weirdness or inconsistencies and I've been unable to find a flaw with this viewpoint.

The relational interpretation makes no fundamental distinction between the human experimenter, the cat, or the apparatus, or between animate and inanimate systems; all are quantum systems governed by the same rules of wavefunction evolution, and all may be considered "observers". But the relational interpretation allows that different observers can give different accounts of the same series of events, depending on the information they have about the system.[19] The cat can be considered an observer of the apparatus; meanwhile, the experimenter can be considered another observer of the system in the box (the cat plus the apparatus). Before the box is opened, the cat, by nature of its being alive or dead, has information about the state of the apparatus (the atom has either decayed or not decayed); but the experimenter does not have information about the state of the box contents. In this way, the two observers simultaneously have different accounts of the situation: To the cat, the wavefunction of the apparatus has appeared to "collapse"; to the experimenter, the contents of the box appear to be in superposition. Not until the box is opened, and both observers have the same information about what happened, do both system states appear to "collapse" into the same definite result, a cat that is either alive or dead.

Posted: **Wed May 23, 2018 3:43 am**

Suppose there is a clown that HONKs everyone who does not HONK themselves, and only those people.

Does the clown HONK itself?

Posted: **Wed May 23, 2018 7:27 am**

question invalid, clowns are HONK

Posted: **Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:32 am**

I am a clairvoyant and I can predict whatever someone is going to do.
In front of you are two boxes which shall be labeled A and B respectively. The rules are as follows: You may choose to take either both boxes, or box B only. Box A contains $100. you may not take only Box A.
I have already predicted your choice, but I will not tell you what I predicted until you have. If I have predicted that you would choose only box B, then I will have put $1000 in box B; if I predicted that you would choose both, or make your choice randomly, then there will be nothing in box B. What do you do? Take only Box B and risk getting nothing if I'm wrong or take both and walk away with $100 regardless of whatever I predicted?

Posted: **Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:20 am**

false premise tbh

Posted: **Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:39 am**

Stickymayhem wrote:http://ncase.me/trust//

This game explains game theory better than anything else, is super interesting and kind of puts the prisoner's dilemma to bed in a way that doesn't depress me.

I really recommend it. I won't spoil the outcomes but it basically applies the prisoner's dilemma to larger groups to see which strategies are most successful.

actually I'm trying to game the third phase right now and I keep getting to 48 out of 49
why
where's my last lousy point

Posted: **Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:12 pm**

Alice volunteers to undergo an experiment and is told all of the following details: On Sunday she will be put to sleep. Once or twice, during the experiment, Alice will be awakened, interviewed, and put back to sleep with an amnesia-inducing drug that makes her forget that awakening. A perfectly-fair coin will be tossed to determine which experimental procedure to undertake:

- If the coin comes up heads, Alice will be awakened and interviewed on Monday only.
- If the coin comes up tails, she will be awakened and interviewed on Monday and Tuesday.

In either case, she will be awakened on Wednesday without interview and the experiment ends.

Any time Alice is awakened and interviewed she will not be able to tell which day it is or whether she has been awakened before. During the interview Alice is asked: "What is the probability that the coin we flipped was heads?"

Is the answer 1 in 2, or 1 in 3?

Posted: **Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:31 pm**

The coin was only flipped once and there are only two possible outcomes based on it.

Where does the confusion of the 1:3 outcome stem from?

Posted: **Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:45 pm**

Timbrewolf wrote:The coin was only flipped once and there are only two possible outcomes based on it.

Where does the confusion of the 1:3 outcome stem from?

It seems that way but you have to take into account that it's possible that you're not being woken up for the first time since Sunday. Since you don't retain knowledge between days, you have no way of knowing that today is Monday or Tuesday, if you did retain knowledge and this was your second interview, you'd know for certain the coin was tails. But since you don't, you have to allow for the margin of error. When you consider that, there are, in actuality, three possibilities:

Today is Monday, the coin was heads.
Today is Monday, the coin was tails.
Today is Tuesday, the coin was tails.

Knowing that, wouldn't it make sense that the actual probability the coin was heads, is 1 in 3?

Posted: **Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:50 pm**

It's called the Sleeping Beauty problem and nobody is quite sure if the answer is 1 in 2, or 1 in 3. A perfectly fair coin can only have two outcomes as you correctly said, yet when you write down every possible scenario - the math clearly shows there's a higher chance the coin is tails than heads.

It's actually very similar to the Monty Hall problem, where changing your answer after one possibility is removed leaves you with a higher chance of success, despite it going against common sense.

Posted: **Fri Jun 22, 2018 8:30 pm**

I feel like you left out a very important sentence in that coin flipping one.

Posted: **Fri Jun 22, 2018 9:01 pm**

"Probability" is a misnomer here anyways; what the researchers are asking about is confidence. I think that's where a lot of the confusion stems from.

In the Monty Hall problem, there are three possible outcomes of the random event, which are equally weighted. The prize is behind A, B, or C. Picking randomly, you have a 1/3 chance to be correct. When the host, with knowledge of the location of the prize, eliminates one possibility, the prize does not move. The chance your original pick was correct has not changed from having been 1/3. Therefore, the chance your original pick was incorrect is 2/3. You can swap away from your original pick, to the only other remaining possibility, and get the prize 2/3 of the time.

In this problem, there are two possible outcomes of the random event, which are equally weighted. A given experiment will involve either one or two awakenings, with equal probability. In thousands of runs of this experiment, 50% will have one awakening (heads) and 50% will have two awakenings (tails). There are twice as many awakenings which follow a tails flip than that follow a head flip. Therefore in a given awakening you can answer "tails" and be right 2/3 of the time.

Posted: **Fri Jun 22, 2018 9:18 pm**

So yes, they just messed up their phrasing on it.

Posted: **Sat Jun 23, 2018 12:07 am**

CosmicScientist wrote:
Stickymayhem wrote:http://ncase.me/trust//

This game explains game theory better than anything else, is super interesting and kind of puts the prisoner's dilemma to bed in a way that doesn't depress me.

I really recommend it. I won't spoil the outcomes but it basically applies the prisoner's dilemma to larger groups to see which strategies are most successful.
I assume this was an introduction to game theory or a student's project because it relies on each actor's objective being to make as much money as possible to be successful and then makes its rules complex in a way that only serves the conclusions. Or put simply, trust and player behaviour is poorly modelled in that version of continuous game theory.

I learned to exploit to the different mindsets. Cooperate with copycat and grudger all the way until the last round and betray them so that they can't do the same to you. Copykitten would be even easier to exploit, its forgiving demeanour means you'd always get one "free" betray

Posted: **Sat Jun 23, 2018 3:12 am**

CosmicScientist wrote:tfw naturally played grudge and the game told me I was wrong because I didn't exploit anyone

Well you were playing it wrong Cosmic. It's the Prisoner's Dilemma, not the Prisoner's Soiree. You should be maximising your own reward and minimizing your risk, to do anything else is foolish.
Since I knew ahead of time what each participant was going to vote, I could manipulate the system to maximise my own points. In a real world scenario, I'm the guy who would choose betray every time unless I could guarantee your voting.

Posted: **Sat Jun 23, 2018 12:01 pm**

in a real world scenario you'd be the guy catching a real-time punch in the mouth for that kind of behaviour
just super saiyan

Posted: **Sat Jun 23, 2018 12:56 pm**

DemonFiren wrote:in a real world scenario you'd be the guy catching a real-time punch in the mouth for that kind of behaviour
just super saiyan

*betrays your path*

Posted: **Sat Jun 23, 2018 7:01 pm**

Anonmare wrote:
Timbrewolf wrote:The coin was only flipped once and there are only two possible outcomes based on it.

Where does the confusion of the 1:3 outcome stem from?
It seems that way but you have to take into account that it's possible that you're not being woken up for the first time since Sunday. Since you don't retain knowledge between days, you have no way of knowing that today is Monday or Tuesday, if you did retain knowledge and this was your second interview, you'd know for certain the coin was tails. But since you don't, you have to allow for the margin of error. When you consider that, there are, in actuality, three possibilities:

Today is Monday, the coin was heads.
Today is Monday, the coin was tails.
Today is Tuesday, the coin was tails.

Knowing that, wouldn't it make sense that the actual probability the coin was heads, is 1 in 3?

That's like some kind of observer bias though. You aren't thinking about the scenario empirically. There are three possible situations you could be in when asked the question but there are still only two results that could've caused this. If I flip the coin and only observe the heads result once and the tails result a million times it doesn't change the variables that the coin is only flipped once and only has two outcomes.

Posted: **Sat Jun 23, 2018 7:03 pm**

Really you're asking two different questions

The answer to the question "did the coin come up heads" will never change from 1/2
The question you are implying and getting the 1/3 result from is "Is this the first/only time you've been woken up?"

There's a cause and effect linkage between the two but they are asking different things of different numerical systems.

Posted: **Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:45 pm**

Anonmare wrote:It's called the Sleeping Beauty problem and nobody is quite sure if the answer is 1 in 2, or 1 in 3. A perfectly fair coin can only have two outcomes as you correctly said, yet when you write down every possible scenario - the math clearly shows there's a higher chance the coin is tails than heads.

It's actually very similar to the Monty Hall problem, where changing your answer after one possibility is removed leaves you with a higher chance of success, despite it going against common sense.

I'm glad this thread came about because it reminded me of the Python script I was going to write to show actual numbers for the monty hall thing, because I still didn't believe it despite Sticky explaining it to me a year ago...

Code:

Spoiler:

Code: Select all

"""
--------THREE DOOR MONTY--------
You're a contestant on a game show called 'THREE DOOR MONTY'.
The game is simple:
    * There are three doors
    * Behind one door is a car
    * The other two: goats
    * You get to pick a random door
    * Of the remain two doors, a door with a goat is removed
    * You have a choice of either switching or staying

Do you have a higher probability of winning if you switch or stay?
"""

from random import randrange, shuffle
from pypyodbc import *

#conn = connect('DRIVER={SQL Server};SERVER=MAIN-02\GAMETHEORY;DATABASE=ThreeDoorMonty;UID=con;PWD=nection')

vicCount_stayer = 0			            # victory counter for the stayer
vicCount_switcher = 0			        # victory counter for the switcher


for i in range(100):
    print()
    print("Loop Start: " + str(i+1))
    # what can be behind the door
    prizes = ['goat1', 'car', 'goat2']
    shuffle(prizes)

    # the doors - choose randomly from list, remove answer from list
    doorA = prizes.pop(randrange(0, (len(prizes))))
    doorB = prizes.pop(randrange(0, (len(prizes))))
    doorC = prizes.pop(randrange(0, (len(prizes))))

    doors = [doorA, doorB, doorC]
    print("Doors: " + str(doors))

    # Sticker chooses a random door
    sticker = doors.pop(randrange(0, (len(doors))))
    print("Sticker: " + sticker)

    # Eliminate an unpicked door that contained a goat
    while True:
        ind = randrange(0, (len(doors)))
        if (doors[ind] == 'goat1') or (doors[ind] == 'goat2'):
            eliminated = doors.pop(ind)
            break

    # What the choice would be if the contestant switched
    # quick sanity check
    if len(doors) != 1:
        print("Too many choices left, exiting")
        exit(999)
    switcher = doors.pop()
    print("Switcher: " + switcher)

    # Check who wins: the stayer or the switcher. Add 1 to relevant tally.
    # sanity check
    if(sticker == 'car') and (switcher == 'car'):
        print("There can only be one")
        exit(911)

    if sticker == 'car':
        vicCount_stayer += 1
    if switcher == 'car':
        vicCount_switcher += 1

print()
print("Sticker Wins: " + str(vicCount_stayer))
print("Switcher Wins: " + str(vicCount_switcher))

Dump of 100 iterations:

Spoiler:

Code: Select all

D:\Programming\Projects\PyCharmProjects\ThreeDoorMonty\venv\Scripts\python.exe D:/Programming/Projects/PyCharmProjects/ThreeDoorMonty/main.py

Loop Start: 1
Doors: ['goat1', 'car', 'goat2']
Sticker: car
Switcher: goat1

Loop Start: 2
Doors: ['goat1', 'car', 'goat2']
Sticker: car
Switcher: goat1

Loop Start: 3
Doors: ['goat1', 'goat2', 'car']
Sticker: goat1
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 4
Doors: ['goat2', 'goat1', 'car']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 5
Doors: ['car', 'goat2', 'goat1']
Sticker: car
Switcher: goat1

Loop Start: 6
Doors: ['goat1', 'car', 'goat2']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 7
Doors: ['car', 'goat2', 'goat1']
Sticker: goat1
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 8
Doors: ['goat2', 'goat1', 'car']
Sticker: goat1
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 9
Doors: ['goat2', 'goat1', 'car']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 10
Doors: ['goat2', 'goat1', 'car']
Sticker: goat1
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 11
Doors: ['goat2', 'goat1', 'car']
Sticker: goat1
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 12
Doors: ['car', 'goat1', 'goat2']
Sticker: car
Switcher: goat1

Loop Start: 13
Doors: ['goat2', 'car', 'goat1']
Sticker: car
Switcher: goat1

Loop Start: 14
Doors: ['car', 'goat1', 'goat2']
Sticker: car
Switcher: goat2

Loop Start: 15
Doors: ['goat1', 'goat2', 'car']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 16
Doors: ['goat1', 'goat2', 'car']
Sticker: goat1
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 17
Doors: ['goat2', 'goat1', 'car']
Sticker: car
Switcher: goat1

Loop Start: 18
Doors: ['car', 'goat1', 'goat2']
Sticker: goat1
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 19
Doors: ['goat2', 'car', 'goat1']
Sticker: goat1
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 20
Doors: ['car', 'goat1', 'goat2']
Sticker: goat1
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 21
Doors: ['goat2', 'car', 'goat1']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 22
Doors: ['goat2', 'car', 'goat1']
Sticker: car
Switcher: goat2

Loop Start: 23
Doors: ['car', 'goat2', 'goat1']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 24
Doors: ['goat2', 'car', 'goat1']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 25
Doors: ['goat2', 'car', 'goat1']
Sticker: goat1
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 26
Doors: ['car', 'goat2', 'goat1']
Sticker: car
Switcher: goat2

Loop Start: 27
Doors: ['goat1', 'goat2', 'car']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 28
Doors: ['car', 'goat1', 'goat2']
Sticker: goat1
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 29
Doors: ['car', 'goat1', 'goat2']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 30
Doors: ['car', 'goat1', 'goat2']
Sticker: goat1
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 31
Doors: ['car', 'goat2', 'goat1']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 32
Doors: ['goat1', 'car', 'goat2']
Sticker: car
Switcher: goat1

Loop Start: 33
Doors: ['car', 'goat2', 'goat1']
Sticker: goat1
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 34
Doors: ['goat1', 'goat2', 'car']
Sticker: car
Switcher: goat2

Loop Start: 35
Doors: ['goat1', 'goat2', 'car']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 36
Doors: ['goat1', 'car', 'goat2']
Sticker: goat1
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 37
Doors: ['goat1', 'goat2', 'car']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 38
Doors: ['goat2', 'car', 'goat1']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 39
Doors: ['car', 'goat2', 'goat1']
Sticker: car
Switcher: goat1

Loop Start: 40
Doors: ['goat2', 'car', 'goat1']
Sticker: car
Switcher: goat2

Loop Start: 41
Doors: ['goat1', 'car', 'goat2']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 42
Doors: ['goat2', 'car', 'goat1']
Sticker: goat1
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 43
Doors: ['goat1', 'goat2', 'car']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 44
Doors: ['car', 'goat2', 'goat1']
Sticker: car
Switcher: goat2

Loop Start: 45
Doors: ['car', 'goat1', 'goat2']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 46
Doors: ['goat2', 'car', 'goat1']
Sticker: goat1
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 47
Doors: ['goat2', 'goat1', 'car']
Sticker: car
Switcher: goat2

Loop Start: 48
Doors: ['car', 'goat1', 'goat2']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 49
Doors: ['goat2', 'car', 'goat1']
Sticker: goat1
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 50
Doors: ['goat2', 'goat1', 'car']
Sticker: goat1
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 51
Doors: ['car', 'goat2', 'goat1']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 52
Doors: ['goat2', 'goat1', 'car']
Sticker: goat1
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 53
Doors: ['goat2', 'car', 'goat1']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 54
Doors: ['goat2', 'goat1', 'car']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 55
Doors: ['car', 'goat1', 'goat2']
Sticker: goat1
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 56
Doors: ['goat2', 'car', 'goat1']
Sticker: goat1
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 57
Doors: ['goat2', 'car', 'goat1']
Sticker: car
Switcher: goat2

Loop Start: 58
Doors: ['car', 'goat2', 'goat1']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 59
Doors: ['car', 'goat1', 'goat2']
Sticker: goat1
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 60
Doors: ['car', 'goat1', 'goat2']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 61
Doors: ['car', 'goat2', 'goat1']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 62
Doors: ['goat1', 'goat2', 'car']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 63
Doors: ['car', 'goat1', 'goat2']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 64
Doors: ['goat2', 'car', 'goat1']
Sticker: goat1
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 65
Doors: ['car', 'goat1', 'goat2']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 66
Doors: ['goat1', 'goat2', 'car']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 67
Doors: ['goat1', 'car', 'goat2']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 68
Doors: ['goat2', 'goat1', 'car']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 69
Doors: ['car', 'goat1', 'goat2']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 70
Doors: ['goat2', 'car', 'goat1']
Sticker: car
Switcher: goat1

Loop Start: 71
Doors: ['car', 'goat2', 'goat1']
Sticker: car
Switcher: goat2

Loop Start: 72
Doors: ['car', 'goat1', 'goat2']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 73
Doors: ['goat2', 'goat1', 'car']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 74
Doors: ['goat2', 'goat1', 'car']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 75
Doors: ['car', 'goat2', 'goat1']
Sticker: goat1
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 76
Doors: ['goat2', 'goat1', 'car']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 77
Doors: ['car', 'goat2', 'goat1']
Sticker: goat1
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 78
Doors: ['car', 'goat2', 'goat1']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 79
Doors: ['goat1', 'car', 'goat2']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 80
Doors: ['goat1', 'goat2', 'car']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 81
Doors: ['goat2', 'car', 'goat1']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 82
Doors: ['goat2', 'car', 'goat1']
Sticker: car
Switcher: goat2

Loop Start: 83
Doors: ['goat2', 'car', 'goat1']
Sticker: goat1
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 84
Doors: ['car', 'goat2', 'goat1']
Sticker: car
Switcher: goat2

Loop Start: 85
Doors: ['goat1', 'car', 'goat2']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 86
Doors: ['goat1', 'goat2', 'car']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 87
Doors: ['goat2', 'car', 'goat1']
Sticker: car
Switcher: goat1

Loop Start: 88
Doors: ['car', 'goat1', 'goat2']
Sticker: goat1
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 89
Doors: ['goat1', 'car', 'goat2']
Sticker: goat1
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 90
Doors: ['car', 'goat1', 'goat2']
Sticker: car
Switcher: goat1

Loop Start: 91
Doors: ['goat1', 'goat2', 'car']
Sticker: goat1
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 92
Doors: ['car', 'goat2', 'goat1']
Sticker: car
Switcher: goat2

Loop Start: 93
Doors: ['goat2', 'goat1', 'car']
Sticker: car
Switcher: goat2

Loop Start: 94
Doors: ['goat2', 'goat1', 'car']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 95
Doors: ['goat1', 'car', 'goat2']
Sticker: car
Switcher: goat2

Loop Start: 96
Doors: ['car', 'goat1', 'goat2']
Sticker: car
Switcher: goat2

Loop Start: 97
Doors: ['goat2', 'goat1', 'car']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 98
Doors: ['goat2', 'goat1', 'car']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Loop Start: 99
Doors: ['goat2', 'goat1', 'car']
Sticker: car
Switcher: goat1

Loop Start: 100
Doors: ['car', 'goat2', 'goat1']
Sticker: goat2
Switcher: car

Sticker Wins: 27
Switcher Wins: 73

Results:

Code: Select all

Sticker Wins: 27
Switcher Wins: 73

Posted: **Tue Jun 26, 2018 1:38 am**

#blackboxlivesmatter

placeholder for a more intelligent comment in four years

Posted: **Mon Jul 30, 2018 3:17 am**

How many stars are out tonight?

Look at your keyboard. How many keys have singular alphabetical letters? 26, assuming you're English speaking, right? What if I told you there are 26 stars in the sky tonight?

Look at your clock on the wall, there are 12 numbered positions on it. Multiply that number by a factor of 5, divide it 3 then square it. From that number, we can say that there are 400 stars in the sky tonight.

Both of these answers are correct. Now, how can this be?

Posted: **Mon Jul 30, 2018 5:48 am**

That doesn't even make any sense. "Here are two different math problems with two different answers HOW CAN THIS BEEEEEE?"

Here's another free of charge: 1+1 = 2, but 2+2 = 4. HOW CAN THIS BEEEEEEEEEEEEEE?

Posted: **Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:55 am**

that has nothing to do with either philosophy or logic
it's just the rabbit thirsting for (you)s like it thirsts for lizard cum

Posted: **Mon Jul 30, 2018 6:56 pm**

ShadowDimentio wrote:That doesn't even make any sense. "Here are two different math problems with two different answers HOW CAN THIS BEEEEEE?"

Here's another free of charge: 1+1 = 2, but 2+2 = 4. HOW CAN THIS BEEEEEEEEEEEEEE?

It's really easy ShadowDummy. I said:
"There are [Number] stars in the sky tonight."
The way I worded my answer is technically correct, there are indeed at least 26/400 stars in the sky tonight, but I never actually answered the question in bold. I only said how many stars I was willing to count. Since the actual answer is ever-changing, giving a direct answer to the question (I.E. Just a number) will always be wrong.

For example, you could say: "There are sixteen stars in the night sky tonight." This is technically true, as there are at least sixteen stars in the sky. As long as you don't answer the question (i.e. how many stars are there in the night sky tonight) directly, you can say whatever amount you want. Sixteen, forty-two, six to the power of two; they're all correct as long as you say the answer in the right format.

This is more of a problem of language than it is one of logic or mathematics.

Posted: **Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:32 pm**

Anonmare wrote:I only said how many stars I was willing to count. Since the actual answer is ever-changing, giving a direct answer to the question (I.E. Just a number) will always be wrong.

Wrong. Space is infinite but there's only a finite number of stars in it at one time, we just don't know how many there are.

Posted: **Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:44 am**

ShadowDimentio wrote:Space is infinite

[citation needed]

Posted: **Tue Jul 31, 2018 2:31 pm**

Anonmare wrote:
ShadowDimentio wrote:That doesn't even make any sense. "Here are two different math problems with two different answers HOW CAN THIS BEEEEEE?"

Here's another free of charge: 1+1 = 2, but 2+2 = 4. HOW CAN THIS BEEEEEEEEEEEEEE?
It's really easy ShadowDummy. I said:
"There are [Number] stars in the sky tonight."
The way I worded my answer is technically correct, there are indeed at least 26/400 stars in the sky tonight, but I never actually answered the question in bold. I only said how many stars I was willing to count. Since the actual answer is ever-changing, giving a direct answer to the question (I.E. Just a number) will always be wrong.

For example, you could say: "There are sixteen stars in the night sky tonight." This is technically true, as there are at least sixteen stars in the sky. As long as you don't answer the question (i.e. how many stars are there in the night sky tonight) directly, you can say whatever amount you want. Sixteen, forty-two, six to the power of two; they're all correct as long as you say the answer in the right format.

This is more of a problem of language than it is one of logic or mathematics.

But by saying that they are answers, it is implied that they answer the proposed question.
Semantics is really boring.

Posted: **Fri Apr 12, 2019 3:34 pm**

Anonmare wrote:It's called the Sleeping Beauty problem and nobody is quite sure if the answer is 1 in 2, or 1 in 3. A perfectly fair coin can only have two outcomes as you correctly said, yet when you write down every possible scenario - the math clearly shows there's a higher chance the coin is tails than heads.

It's actually very similar to the Monty Hall problem, where changing your answer after one possibility is removed leaves you with a higher chance of success, despite it going against common sense.

Play the monty hall problem with a deck of cards instead of three doors and the way the math works becomes clear

I have a deck of 52 cards, ask you to draw one face down without looking at it, if it's the ace of spades then you win
After you draw, I select a card and place it face-down on the table, then show you the remaining 50 cards to confirm that none of them are the ace of spades
I then ask you if you want to swap

There is clearly a 51/52 chance that my card is the ace of spades compared to your 1/52, because you selected randomly from the large set while I did not select at random. Just like the doors in the monty hall problem, it's not a case of "there's two doors left so it's 50-50 whether it's mine or his", it's "there was a 2/3 chance of my initial guess being wrong and he's deliberately eliminated a losing door from the two I didn't guess, leaving only one door left in that set"

Posted: **Sun Apr 14, 2019 3:02 pm**

The Chinese character one from the OP is absolutely idiotic. Is there seriously anyone actually arguing that Alice understands Chinese there? Anyone who does is probably too dumb to think properly. That's the only way I can possibly imagine anyone coming to such a crazy conclusion.

The only way to understand Chinese is to be able to link each character with what it represents. The form of that link doesn't matter. Alice fails to understand Chinese because there is no such link. An automaton could understand Chinese even if it's "just" a response stimulus because there is, in fact, such a link.

I think I'm getting tripped up because there's this weird philosophical argument that human brains and rational thought don't "follow the rules" of the rest of the universe, which is of course ridiculous on its face. This is how we come to stupid ideas like the brain is "being driven" by a soul which is separate from the brain entirely. Which is fun and cute in fiction or religion or even philosophy but scary when you consider fully grown adults actually believe this nonsense as a model of the universe, including people who should know better by going to college and becoming fucking scientists.

ShadowDimentio wrote:
Anonmare wrote:I only said how many stars I was willing to count. Since the actual answer is ever-changing, giving a direct answer to the question (I.E. Just a number) will always be wrong.
Wrong. Space is infinite...

Unknown if this is true AFAIK. The observable universe, on the other hand, is very much not infinite. So yes, there are countably many stars in the night sky. This also ignores cutoffs from brightness, which would cut down the number of stars to countably many even if it was literally infinite. Given enough distance, a star of any possible brightness would be too dim to see.

Posted: **Sun Apr 14, 2019 3:24 pm**

It's a common misconception. Space is boundless, but finite.

Posted: **Sun Apr 14, 2019 6:37 pm**

does the trolley problem count because I like yelling about how its variations make my brain hurt

Posted: **Sun Apr 14, 2019 7:33 pm**

If I took all of the molecules that compose a human being, take them apart, and then put them back together in the exact same configuration, is this still the same person or a new person?

Posted: **Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:03 pm**

You wouldn't be able to put it in exact same configuration.

Posted: **Sun Apr 14, 2019 10:37 pm**

Very similar then, within a very small tolerance.

Posted: **Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:13 pm**

Well, read this story by Lem.

https://english.lem.pl/index.php/works/ ... de-dialogs

Posted: **Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:01 pm**

Hylas is a fucking idiot.

/tg/Station 13

Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes

Re: Philosophical problems and logical paradoxes