3 ms·
I think any version of the paradox that defines the predictor as infallible misses the whole point of the paradox. That's just defining the outcome of the game
by empthought 12y ago
I think any version of the paradox that defines the predictor as infallible misses the whole point of the paradox. That's just defining the outcome of the game as the will of God. "Has always been observed to be correct" is the appropriate construction.
However, I think someone could resuscitate the original intent of the paradox by having the Predictor's actions also hinge on whether or not it predicts that you would make such a bet, and leave box B empty if it does predict that. Essentially defining itself to be correct in the situation where, without this addendum, it would have been incorrect and you would have won the bet.
- greggyb 12y agoI mean, now you're just creating a moving target. I think you are intent upon maintaining the paradox, whereas I was just pointing out a loophole that allows a better outcome without resolving it. Gordian knot and all.
- empthought 12y agoThe paradox is supposed to be maintained. It is supposed to illustrate the incommensurability of the two decision methods that it illustrates. It's not supposed to be "solved" or "cut."
- greggyb 12y agoThe paradox exists. I did not solve it., I worked within the confines of it to find a potentially better outcome. You have changed the definition of the paradox. Both can be valuable avenues of thought. I tend to view paradoxes as learning opportunities or a way to practice critical and logical thinking skills. Both of us have achieved that, so yay, but there's definitely not a single way to approach a paradox when presented with one.