3 ms·
> He can go left and come out right to demonstrate that he knows the secret - without revealing the secret Correct > The reporter would still not know how he
by Ended 9y ago
> He can go left and come out right to demonstrate that he knows the secret - without revealing the secret
Correct
> The reporter would still not know how he did it
Correct
> and could not pass his conviction on to the judges
Incorrect, in this case he could pass on his conviction to the judges simply by showing them the tape where Mick goes in left and comes out right in a single unbroken take. Such a tape cannot be faked by the fake reporter.
- cJ0th 9y ago> Such a tape cannot be faked by the fake reporter. Well, at least that's the implicit assumption.
- Spivak 9y ago> Such a tape cannot be faked by the fake reporter. This is where I disagree. The second reporter will just tape the actor going in the left, editing magic, and observe him coming out the right. Both tapes will be indistinguishable. In the original story the second reporter couldn't produce an unbroken tape between successive trials like the first reporter, so that can't be the litmus for proof.
- Arnavion 9y agoThat's basically a breakdown of the analogy. If you want, you can forget about recording and tapes. Assume there was another person (unaffiliated with Mick or the reporter) standing next to the reporter while the experiment was being conducted. The rest of the story can stay the same. Mick also does not want this person to become convinced that Mick knows the secret. Per the original story, this second person cannot know whether Mick coming out of the path that the reporter announces is a genuine display of Mick's ability or simply a collusion between Mick and the reporter. But if we go with the plan to observe Mick going in one path and out the other then this second person can become convinced of it.